SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

2,13,31,9857- as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 48. The above issue Relates to disallowance of depreciation on assets being pipeline systems which stands dealt with by us above as ISSUE No.1 at para 6-23 of our order above. Applying our findings at para 11-23 of the order therefore this issue

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

2,13,31,9857- as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 48. The above issue Relates to disallowance of depreciation on assets being pipeline systems which stands dealt with by us above as ISSUE No.1 at para 6-23 of our order above. Applying our findings at para 11-23 of the order therefore this issue

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

244A of the Act amounting to Rs.19,32,350/-. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.64,67,783/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.38,840/ in respect of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act relating to the late payment of PF/ESIC payment. The Assessing Officer assessed the income

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

244A of the Act amounting to Rs.19,32,350/-. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.64,67,783/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.38,840/ in respect of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act relating to the late payment of PF/ESIC payment. The Assessing Officer assessed the income

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

2,36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

2,36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

2,36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

2,36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

BUNDY INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) Act, 2009), the ld. AO / ΤΡΟ should apply 5% variation to the arm's length price of the international transaction between the Appellant and its AEs. ITA No.1764/Ahd/2013 (Bundy India Limited vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2007-08- 6 – 8. The learned CIT(A) erred by upholding the action of assessing officer of disallowing the claim of write-off of proportionate

VEER PLASTICS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT -4, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) for a sum of Rs.6,41,37,291/- and (iii) alleged non-inclusion of interest u/s. 244A of Rs. 4,83,616/- on the income tax refund which has already been included in total income assessed by AO; in utter disregard to the fact that in the course of original assessment proceedings

PARIMAL CHANDRAKANT ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 548 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. This appeal is filed by the assessee on 01.11.2021 which was immediate after the under the Covid-19 period wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.A. No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021 passed

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

244A of Rs 3.64.11.732), instead of the only adjustment required to the extent of the tax refund amount of Rs 30,34,31,139/-. ITA No. 392/Ahd/2023 [Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 4 – 14. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in mechanically initiating Penalty Proceedings u/s 270A