THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36 (1)(va) of the Act. ITA Nos.722,218&1306/Ahd/2014 & ITA No. 1345/Ahd/2015 A.Ys. 2000-01&2007-08 to 2009-10 33 Under the provision of PF and ESI Act, the period for making the payment has been specified within 15 days from the end of the month in which salary of the assessee became due. However, there

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36 (1)(va) of the Act. ITA Nos.722,218&1306/Ahd/2014 & ITA No. 1345/Ahd/2015 A.Ys. 2000-01&2007-08 to 2009-10 33 Under the provision of PF and ESI Act, the period for making the payment has been specified within 15 days from the end of the month in which salary of the assessee became due. However, there

SAFAL HOSPITALITY AND MAINTANANCE SERVICE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

section 36(1)(va). The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 41,649/- towards excess payments/receipts appearing in form 26AS. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 7800/- 7 I.T.A No. 76/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. Safal Hospitality and Maintainance Service vs. DCIT towards depreciation

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Depreciation on Akola Plant 1,27,09,375 Excess Remuneration paid 7,64,000 Loss on F&O 4,20,57,547 Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) 71,060 Interest Capitalization of WIP 4,88,000 Prior Period Income 1,05,89,848 Interest free advances 4,24,000 Interest free advances to Shri Nilesh Keshavlal Patel

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Depreciation on Akola Plant 1,27,09,375 Excess Remuneration paid 7,64,000 Loss on F&O 4,20,57,547 Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) 71,060 Interest Capitalization of WIP 4,88,000 Prior Period Income 1,05,89,848 Interest free advances 4,24,000 Interest free advances to Shri Nilesh Keshavlal Patel

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Depreciation - 6,377 - - - 8,044 at higher rate Disallowance 2,96,005 67,97,562 - - - - u/s 40(a)(i) Deduction - - u/s 43B - - - 7,19,293 U/s 40A(3) - - - - - 4,45,971 U/s 40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Depreciation - 6,377 - - - 8,044 at higher rate Disallowance 2,96,005 67,97,562 - - - - u/s 40(a)(i) Deduction - - u/s 43B - - - 7,19,293 U/s 40A(3) - - - - - 4,45,971 U/s 40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Depreciation - 6,377 - - - 8,044 at higher rate Disallowance 2,96,005 67,97,562 - - - - u/s 40(a)(i) Deduction - - u/s 43B - - - 7,19,293 U/s 40A(3) - - - - - 4,45,971 U/s 40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Depreciation - 6,377 - - - 8,044 at higher rate Disallowance 2,96,005 67,97,562 - - - - u/s 40(a)(i) Deduction - - u/s 43B - - - 7,19,293 U/s 40A(3) - - - - - 4,45,971 U/s 40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Depreciation - 6,377 - - - 8,044 at higher rate Disallowance 2,96,005 67,97,562 - - - - u/s 40(a)(i) Deduction - - u/s 43B - - - 7,19,293 U/s 40A(3) - - - - - 4,45,971 U/s 40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Depreciation - 6,377 - - - 8,044 at higher rate Disallowance 2,96,005 67,97,562 - - - - u/s 40(a)(i) Deduction - - u/s 43B - - - 7,19,293 U/s 40A(3) - - - - - 4,45,971 U/s 40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before