ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) (1) AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Disallowance of Rs.46,07,317/- under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act for payments made to non-residents without deducting tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the above additions and granted relief to the assessee. The Revenue

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPN. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

10A or section 10B or] section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or [ (iia) the amount of depreciation debited to the profit and loss account (excluding the depreciation on account of revaluation of assets); or (iib ) the amount withdrawn from revaluation reserve and credited to the profit and loss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED, VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

10A or section 10B or] section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or [ (iia) the amount of depreciation debited to the profit and loss account (excluding the depreciation on account of revaluation of assets); or (iib ) the amount withdrawn from revaluation reserve and credited to the profit and loss

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

10A of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,20,397/- made u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income- tax Rules. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA vs. M/S. WEB GAZER SOFTWARE COMPANY,, VADODARA

3. Solitary issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowances of exemption by the AO under section 10B of the Act for Rs. 39,20,823/- without appreciating the judgment of Hon’ble supreme court in case of Goetze (India) [2006] 157 taxmann.com 1 (SC) 4. The fact in brief for adjudication

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

3. First ground of appeal is verbatim same except variation in the amounts. The grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowances of Rs.7,43,24,689/-, Rs.4,06,52,387/- and Rs.4,06,52,387/- made by the AO out of claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Income

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

3. First ground of appeal is verbatim same except variation in the amounts. The grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowances of Rs.7,43,24,689/-, Rs.4,06,52,387/- and Rs.4,06,52,387/- made by the AO out of claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Income

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

3. First ground of appeal is verbatim same except variation in the amounts. The grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowances of Rs.7,43,24,689/-, Rs.4,06,52,387/- and Rs.4,06,52,387/- made by the AO out of claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Income

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTRA ACTION SOFTWARE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

3) of the Act dated 31st October 2012 for de novo assessment. 8. In view of the above, the AO issued notice under Section 143(2) dated 08thJune 2015 to the assessee for de novo assessment. Subsequently, the AO issued the show causenotice to the assessee under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 03rdJuly 2015 proposing the disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ASCENDUM SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

3] When this appeal was called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection. She submitted that even if the plea of the Assessing Officer is to be accepted, since entire business income of the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 10A, it will be revenue neutral inasmuch as even if disallowance

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made following disallowances: - Total income as per return of income 1,27,99,512/- Add: Additions/Disallowables as discussed above 1 Disallowance u/s.10A 1,33,37,787 2 Interest Disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) 3

SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made following disallowances: - Total income as per return of income 1,27,99,512/- Add: Additions/Disallowables as discussed above 1 Disallowance u/s.10A 1,33,37,787 2 Interest Disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) 3

THIRD EYE ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(15) NOW WARD- 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

10A claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act by disallowing

NAYAB INTERNATIONAL,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowing deduction claimed u/s. 1OA amounting to Rs. 25,15,494/-. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No. 3, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act despite the fact that the necessary certificate in Form No. 56F was duly

ASHWIN BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE J.C.I.T., RANGE-12,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1226/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11)

disallowance under Section 80IB(10) for Rs. 44,76,208 is confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, the assessee in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR for the assessee filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 153 and submitted that the assessee has been allowed

M/S. MOTIF INDIA INFOTECH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1645/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

3 - in Section 10A(1) of the Act and consequently such export revenue subsidy etc. do not form part of profits derived from the export articles or things etc. as contemplated under s.10A of the Act. The benefit of deduction claimed by assessee under s.10A of the Act has thus denied. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

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

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee is in the nature of income as assessee could not demonstrate

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

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee is in the nature of income as assessee could not demonstrate