DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 10B of the Act. 56. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. It is dismissed. 57. Now we take appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No.773/Ahd/2011. 58. Ground nos.1 and 2 taken by the assessee are inter-connected. The assessee had prior period income of Rs.46

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 10B of the Act. 56. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. It is dismissed. 57. Now we take appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No.773/Ahd/2011. 58. Ground nos.1 and 2 taken by the assessee are inter-connected. The assessee had prior period income of Rs.46

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 10B of the Act. 56. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. It is dismissed. 57. Now we take appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No.773/Ahd/2011. 58. Ground nos.1 and 2 taken by the assessee are inter-connected. The assessee had prior period income of Rs.46

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 10B of the Act. 56. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. It is dismissed. 57. Now we take appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No.773/Ahd/2011. 58. Ground nos.1 and 2 taken by the assessee are inter-connected. The assessee had prior period income of Rs.46

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 10B of the Act. 56. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. It is dismissed. 57. Now we take appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No.773/Ahd/2011. 58. Ground nos.1 and 2 taken by the assessee are inter-connected. The assessee had prior period income of Rs.46

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

disallowances of exemption by the AO under section 10B of the Act for Rs. 39,20,823/- without appreciating the judgment

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

RAJGOR AGRO LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Addl./Joint Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance On The Ground That The Assessee Opted For New Tax Regime Under Section 115Baa Of The Act & Filed Form No. 10-Ic On 28.12.2024. Since Both The Return Of Income & Form No. 10-Ic Have Been Filed Belatedly, The Addl./Joint Cit(A) Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

disallowance on the ground that the assessee opted for new tax regime under section 115BAA of the Act and filed Form No. 10-IC on 28.12.2024. Since both the return of income and Form No. 10-IC have been filed belatedly, the Addl./Joint CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 3. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee

APRAMEYA ENGINEERING LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 1(1)(1), INCOME TAX OFFICER , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2022-23 Aprameya Engineering Limited The Income Tax Officer 908, 9Th Floor, Vs Ward-1(1)(1) Venus Atlantis Ahmedabad Corporate Park Anandnagar, Prahlad Nagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) Pan: Aawca 3138 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 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 Of The Add/Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5 Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred As “The Cit(A)”), Dated 23-02-2024, Which Dismissed The Assessee'S Appeal Against The Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”), Passed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. The Primary Issue Is The Rejection Of The Assessee'S Claim For Taxation At A Lower Rate Under Section Aprameya Engineering Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2022-23

10B of the Act is an "exemption provision" and hence, assessee claiming such exemption has to be "strictly" comply with the exemption provisions. However, notably, the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd 391 ITR 274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a "deduction provision" and not an "exemption provision

M/S. ALPHATECH SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.2734/Ahd/2015 is dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Alphatech Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, 5, Aryan Industrial Estate, Baroda. Opp. Matruchaya Marriage Hall, B/H. Pvr Cinema, Channi, Baroda – 390 024. [Pan – Aadca 0799 A] Appellant By : Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Respondent By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Cit (Dr) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Alphatech Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5, Aryan Industrial Estate, Ward – 1(1), Baroda. Opp. Matruchaya Marriage Hall, B/H. Pvr Cinema, Channi, Baroda – 390 024. [Pan – Aadca 0799 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Respondent By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017 O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiyathese Are Appeals By The Revenue Preferred Against Two Separate Orders For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

disallowing exemption of Rs.32,56,998/- claimed under section 10B of the Act. 7. The assessee is in 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

10B shall be of the undertaking located in specified zones or 100% Export Oriented Undertakings, as the case may be, and this shall not have any material relationship with the other business of the assessee outside these zones or units for the purposes of this provision." 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections