SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed by A.O. being there no business activity, the same be allowed since there was 'Lull in business' or 'out of business'. Now coming to alternative ground that deduction of payment of interest out of the interest income

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed by A.O. being there no business activity, the same be allowed since there was 'Lull in business' or 'out of business'. Now coming to alternative ground that deduction of payment of interest out of the interest income

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed by A.O. being there no business activity, the same be allowed since there was 'Lull in business' or 'out of business'. Now coming to alternative ground that deduction of payment of interest out of the interest income

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed by A.O. being there no business activity, the same be allowed since there was 'Lull in business' or 'out of business'. Now coming to alternative ground that deduction of payment of interest out of the interest income

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed by A.O. being there no business activity, the same be allowed since there was 'Lull in business' or 'out of business'. Now coming to alternative ground that deduction of payment of interest out of the interest income

SAMIR NETWORKS LLP(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SAMIR STOCKHOLDINGS PVT. LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Samir Networks Llp The Acit (Converted From Samir Networks Vs Circle-4(1)91) Private Limited) Ahmedabad [Previously Known As Samil Stockholdings Pvt.Ltd.] 8, Abhishree Residency-2 B/H. Kantam Party Plot, Bopal Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaccs 6455 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/12/2024

Income tax act which results into disallowance of expenditure incurred for the purpose of business. Under IT Act, the income

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1187 & 896/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2000-2001 & 2004-2005 Nirma Limited, A.C.I.T., Nirma House, Vs. Circle-5, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

business. Therefore, it is held that the expenes of Rs.53,73,39,554/- and Rs.16,55,02,1037- made by the assessee were capital in nature and the same are disallowed and added to the assesseee's income

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1187 & 896/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2000-2001 & 2004-2005 Nirma Limited, A.C.I.T., Nirma House, Vs. Circle-5, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

business. Therefore, it is held that the expenes of Rs.53,73,39,554/- and Rs.16,55,02,1037- made by the assessee were capital in nature and the same are disallowed and added to the assesseee's income

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

business income. Thus, the disallowance to that extent is just and proper on part of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Thus

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

business income. Thus, the disallowance to that extent is just and proper on part of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Thus

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

business income. Thus, the disallowance to that extent is just and proper on part of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Thus

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 4, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

business income. Thus, the disallowance to that extent is just and proper on part of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Thus

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

business income. Thus, the disallowance to that extent is just and proper on part of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Thus

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

business income. Thus, the disallowance to that extent is just and proper on part of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Thus

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

business income. Thus, the disallowance to that extent is just and proper on part of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Thus

SPORTS AUTHORITY OF GUJARAT,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT (EXEMPRTION) (HQ), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

business income and consequentially disallowed depreciation claimed against the same. 3.2 The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is not a commercial

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

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

Business Income. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

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

Business Income. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

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

Business Income. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance