JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA

M/S. KIRI DYES AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,54,92,775/- which includes other income for Rs. 6,00,86,989/-for the post EOU period which is not eligible for exemption. Therefore, in the present scenario if the same is disallowed then, the eligible profit becomes negative by Rs. 3,45,95,214/-. Therefore the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 10B

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 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

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

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 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-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZAVERI & CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10B(1) of the Act. We have already noticed that sub-section (1) has been expressly made subject to the provisions of the Section. Therefore, the meaning to be ascribed to the words used in that sub-section should be controlled or tempered by the language used in sub- section (4). So constructed it appears to us that the profits

M/S. ZAVERI & CO. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10B(1) of the Act. We have already noticed that sub-section (1) has been expressly made subject to the provisions of the Section. Therefore, the meaning to be ascribed to the words used in that sub-section should be controlled or tempered by the language used in sub- section (4). So constructed it appears to us that the profits

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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZAVERI & COMPANY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

10B(1) of the Act. We have already noticed that sub-section (1) has been expressly made subject to the provisions of the Section. Therefore, the meaning to be ascribed to the words used in that sub-section should be controlled or tempered by the language used in subsection (4). So constructed it appears to us that the profits