THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. ANIMAL BREEDING RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, (INDIA), ANAND

In the result, this tax appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation can be set off against any income. It is submitted it be so held now. 4. The Assessing officer has erred in computing tax on the total income determined by him at flat rate of 30% in place of correct slab rate as applicable to an Association of Persons (AOP). It is submitted it be so held

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. ANIMAL BREEDING RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, (INDIA), ANAND

In the result, this tax appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation can be set off against any income. It is submitted it be so held now. 4. The Assessing officer has erred in computing tax on the total income determined by him at flat rate of 30% in place of correct slab rate as applicable to an Association of Persons (AOP). It is submitted it be so held

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

section 234B and 234D and withdrawing interest u/s 244A under the Act. You appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal.” 47. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

section 234B and 234D and withdrawing interest u/s 244A under the Act. You appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal.” 47. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

section 234B and 234D and withdrawing interest u/s 244A under the Act. You appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal.” 47. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

section 234B and 234D and withdrawing interest u/s 244A under the Act. You appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal.” 47. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

depreciation. 8.1 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case that the aforesaid jigs and fixtures are made specifically for individual customer and would become useless if there is change in customer requirement. 8.2 The learned CIT(A) also failed to appreciate the facts of the case that the useful life of the jigs and fixtures

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

depreciable assets. 18. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred in making arbitrary/ extraneous observations based on conjectures/ surmises and unsound presumptions, which are not in accordance with the facts of the case. 19. That the Ld.AO erred on facts and in law in law in charging interest under sections 234B and234DoftheAct. 20. That the Ld.AO erred on facts

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

depreciable assets. 18. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred in making arbitrary/ extraneous observations based on conjectures/ surmises and unsound presumptions, which are not in accordance with the facts of the case. 19. That the Ld.AO erred on facts and in law in law in charging interest under sections 234B and234DoftheAct. 20. That the Ld.AO erred on facts

M/S. JALARAM INVESTMENT,,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3,, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Jalaram Investment, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Opp. Jain Temple, Gayatri Nagar, Ward-3, Wanakbori, Tal. Thasra, Nadiad Dist. Kheda [Pan : Aaefj 9906 E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Talera, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2020

depreciation : Rs. 4,706/- Total Rs.43,782/- While completing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, the Assessing Officer made further additions which have been sustained in first appeal and the same are as under: i) Commission income not disclosed : Rs. 9,526/- ii) Disallowance of advertisement expenses : Rs. 8,000/- iii) Interest u/s 244A not disclosed

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

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

sections of pipelines, becomes integral part of Grid. The learned CIT(A) has further failed to appreciate that the Gas to the customer can be supplied only after pipeline is tested, commissioned and added to the pipeline network. It is a settled position of law that once asset is commissioned & put to use in business, depreciation is admissible. I.T.A

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

sections of pipelines, becomes integral part of Grid. The learned CIT(A) has further failed to appreciate that the Gas to the customer can be supplied only after pipeline is tested, commissioned and added to the pipeline network. It is a settled position of law that once asset is commissioned & put to use in business, depreciation is admissible. I.T.A

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change