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

10A to 10C of Income Tax Rules? 4. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting the ALP of the assessee determined by ignoring the guidelines laid down under the I.T. Act and Rules and thereby violating the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

7 others A.Y. 2008-09 19 14.1 The first objection raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the alternate claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act. 14.2 At the outset, we note that the deduction /exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10B of the Act has already been allowed

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

7) of section 10AA of the Act. Our above view also finds support from the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Exports Limited v/s. ACIT, (2008) TIOL-457-ITAT-Bangalore wherein it was held that: "In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it seems to us that the expression "profits of the business

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

7) of section 10AA of the Act. Our above view also finds support from the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Exports Limited v/s. ACIT, (2008) TIOL-457-ITAT-Bangalore wherein it was held that: "In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it seems to us that the expression "profits of the business

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

7) of section 10AA of the Act. Our above view also finds support from the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Exports Limited v/s. ACIT, (2008) TIOL-457-ITAT-Bangalore wherein it was held that: "In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it seems to us that the expression "profits of the business

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee for the deduction under Section 10A of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,98,00,647/- and added the same to the total income. 9. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Learned CIT(A). 10. The assessee before the Learned CIT(A) submitted that the provisions of Section 10A of the Act does

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PRIYAL INTERNATIONAL P.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No. 4 of the Revenues appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3115/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

disallowance of interest on advance given for purchase of immovable property of Rs. 4,83,675/-.” 3. Ground No. 1 and 2 concerns eligibility of deduction of interest on fixed deposit amounting to Rs. 9,61,73,903/- for the purposes of Section 10AA of the Act. The assessee company is engaged in the business of trading in bullion commodities

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

7. As regards ground no.1 related to disallowance claimed of Rs.36,71,673/- out of total disallowance of claim of Rs.1,33,37,787/- made under Section 10A

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

7. As regards ground no.1 related to disallowance claimed of Rs.36,71,673/- out of total disallowance of claim of Rs.1,33,37,787/- made under Section 10A

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

disallowed after reopening of the assessment under section 147 in the current A.Y. i.e. 2009-10 for the reason that it does not possess proper approval as a 100% export oriented undertaking by the Board appointed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 14 of the Industries (Development & Regulation

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

10A, it will be revenue neutral inasmuch as even if disallowance under section 40(a)(i) is upheld, the corresponding enhanced income eligible for section 10 A benefit will also go up. She invites our attention to I.T.A. No.4 29/Ah d/1 4 Assessme nt year: 20 09- 10 Page 2 of 5 CBDT circular No. 37 dated 2nd November

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

7. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the assessee in the original assessment proceedings had not furnished the report in form 56F. Therefore the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act. The learned DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials

ELITECORE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT.-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowing the set-off of the business loss of A.Y 2001-02 and added it back to the total income of the assessee-company. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of assessment dated 24th December 2009, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and by order dated 19th November 2010, the CIT(A) had dismissed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZYDUS HOSPIRA ONCOLOGY PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.81/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) Vs. M/S.Zydus Hospira Oncology Ahmedabad. P.Ltd. Plot No.3, Pharmez Sarkhej Bavla Highway Tal. Matoda, Ahmedabad Pin : 382 213. Pan : Aaacz 2327 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

10A of Rs.2,20,47,238/- under the head “other income” on account of exchange rate fluctuation gain. The ld.AO sought justification from the assessee for not excluding the forex income earned from the export turnover and profits of the business of the assessee for the purpose of calculating exemption under section 10AA of the Act. Assessee submitted that

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)

10A in respect of miscellaneous income, sundry balance and export subsidy amounting to Rs.20,74,209/-. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is therefore confirmed.” 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We find that the issue is substantially covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

7 Axis Bank Limited Vs. ACIT AY : 2018-19 own interest-free funds by way of capitals and reserves amounting to Rs. 63,445.25 crores for the purpose of making tax-free investments of Rs.5,421.46 crores, warranting no disallowance of interest expenses. All the above, he stated, was demonstrated to the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings

DECISION CRAFT ANALYTICS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1161 & 1162/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Decision Craft Analytics Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 601, Shahpath-Ii Circle-1 Vs. Opp. Rajpath Club Ahmedabad Sg Highway, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 5157 E .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Krupesh Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr

disallowance of the claim to buy the peace of mind does not absolve the assessee from the penalty to be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also observed ITA Nos.1161 & 1162/Ahd/2015 Decision Craft Analytics Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Years - 2007-08 & 2008-09 that the assessee had not made any specific submission against the penalty imposed

DECISION CRAFT ANALYTICS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1161 & 1162/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Decision Craft Analytics Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 601, Shahpath-Ii Circle-1 Vs. Opp. Rajpath Club Ahmedabad Sg Highway, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 5157 E .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Krupesh Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr

disallowance of the claim to buy the peace of mind does not absolve the assessee from the penalty to be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also observed ITA Nos.1161 & 1162/Ahd/2015 Decision Craft Analytics Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Years - 2007-08 & 2008-09 that the assessee had not made any specific submission against the penalty imposed