THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 57.5 At this juncture, we also find pertinent to note that even assuming the closing stock declared by the assessee

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 57.5 At this juncture, we also find pertinent to note that even assuming the closing stock declared by the assessee

KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHUVAN METAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

depreciation on windmill while computing book profit u/s.H5JB was not examined by learned Assessing Officer. Revision on this ground is mere change of opinion, and therefore, illegal, and therefore, requires to be quashed. 4. The learned C.I.T. has erred in passing revision order on the ground that details of valuation of closing stock was not furnished before learned Assessing Officer

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 10.3 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we do not find any infirmity

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

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

depreciation under Section 35AC of the Act. Even otherwise, the Ld. PCIT erred in not pointing out any error and the amount prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, the Ld. PCIT erred in invoking the powers u/s. 263 of the Act on this issue. 3 Ground No. 3 Direction on account of Section 40A

M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD.,,DEESA vs. THE JT.CIT, B.K.RANGE,, PALANPUR

In the result, ground number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

depreciation on said car even though it was bought by company in name of its Director. 7.1 However, in the instant facts, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has made a specific observation that firstly, the assets (vehicles) have not been acquired out of funds of the assessee company, secondly, the assets have been purchased in the names of Shri Bharat Agarwal, Dinesh

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 40A(3) of the Act was liable to be deleted. Ground No.3 of the Revenue’s appeal for AY 1999-2000 is accordingly dismissed. 14. Now we shall take up Revenue’s appeal for AY 2001-02 being ITA No.247/Ahd/2020. As regards Ground Nos.1 & 2 of this appeal, it is observed that the issues raised therein by the Revenue

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

40A(3) of the Act and the decision relied by the Ld. AR in the case of Anupam Tele Services (supra) is squarely applicable in assessee’s case. Hence, Ground no.9 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 30. As regards to Ground No. 10 relating to freebies, the Ld. DR submitted that this issue is covered in favour of Revenue

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

40A(3) of the Act and the decision relied by the Ld. AR in the case of Anupam Tele Services (supra) is squarely applicable in assessee’s case. Hence, Ground no.9 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 30. As regards to Ground No. 10 relating to freebies, the Ld. DR submitted that this issue is covered in favour of Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. KHYATI CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

3 DCIT Vs. Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. retained /accumulated profit. Hence, A.O. concluded that company had paid distributed dividend in the form of unreasonable salary to avoid payment of tax. A.O. applied specific provision under section 40A (2) (b) regarding allowability of salary as per fair market value. Appellant being private limited company, not liable to pay salary more than

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40A(2) of the Act. ITA Nos. 1583&1585/Ahd/2024 Crest Speciality Resins Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (Now DCIT) Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2016-17 - 3– Depreciation on electrical installation 9) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming (he action of the learned AO in making disallowance of the depreciation of Rs, 5,54.435/- claimed

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation of plant and machinery used by Sun Pharma Industries & Sun Pharma Sikkim. 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IE in respect of receipt of interest of Rs.29,49.60,969/- on delayed payments on sales, without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation of plant and machinery used by Sun Pharma Industries & Sun Pharma Sikkim. 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IE in respect of receipt of interest of Rs.29,49.60,969/- on delayed payments on sales, without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned

SHREE ALEKH,BHAVNAGAR vs. PCIT AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

depreciation was justly claimed. 4. The Id. PCIT has further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the view taken by the AO is a possible view and hence the proceedings are illegal and bad in law. 5. The Id. PCIT has further erred in law in not coming to any concrete conclusion and without conducting

RAMANLAL JIVRAJBHAI PATEL,THANE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel The Ito B-2003, Shreeji Heights Vs Ward-1 (Palm Beach Road, Navi Mumbai – Himatnagar Thane, Nerul Node –Iii So) Sector 46A, Plot No.1, 1A, 1B, 1C Thane 400 706 Maharashtra Pan: Abcpp 1551 G .. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Patel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20/02/2024 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ao’] Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Facts Of The Case: Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

Depreciation Rs. 11,555, Office and Other Expenses Rs. 98,540/-. 11. We have gone through the details and evidence submitted. In our opinion, the reasonableness of business expenditure should be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not the Revenue. However, while allowing such claim as business expenditure u/s.37 of the Act, provisions of section 40A

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-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