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

4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis. The transactions in the nature of loans and advances are usually very few in number whereas in the present case, such transactions

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

4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis. The transactions in the nature of loans and advances are usually very few in number whereas in the present case, such transactions

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

4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis. The transactions in the nature of loans and advances are usually very few in number whereas in the present case, such transactions

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

4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis. The transactions in the nature of loans and advances are usually very few in number whereas in the present case, such transactions

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

4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis. The transactions in the nature of loans and advances are usually very few in number whereas in the present case, such transactions

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 of Hon’ble supreme court in case of Goetze (India) [2006] 157 taxmann.com 1 (SC) 4

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. KOTA BARAN TOLLWAY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

10B of the Act. 16. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. 194 taxman 192 (Bombay), the High Court held that where the Assessing Officer had enhanced income by disallowing employers as well as employees contribution towards Provident Fund / ESIC, exemption under Section 10A had to be granted on such enhanced income. DCIT

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

4. Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D – Rs.1,48,94,208/-: 4.1 'Value of investment' in case of investment in partnership firms: 4.1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO to consider the balance in partners current account

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

4. Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D – Rs.1,48,94,208/-: 4.1 'Value of investment' in case of investment in partnership firms: 4.1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO to consider the balance in partners current account

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

4. Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D – Rs.1,48,94,208/-: 4.1 'Value of investment' in case of investment in partnership firms: 4.1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO to consider the balance in partners current account

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

4. Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D – Rs.1,48,94,208/-: 4.1 'Value of investment' in case of investment in partnership firms: 4.1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO to consider the balance in partners current account

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

4. Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D – Rs.1,48,94,208/-: 4.1 'Value of investment' in case of investment in partnership firms: 4.1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO to consider the balance in partners current account

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

4. Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D – Rs.1,48,94,208/-: 4.1 'Value of investment' in case of investment in partnership firms: 4.1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO to consider the balance in partners current account

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

4. Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D – Rs.1,48,94,208/-: 4.1 'Value of investment' in case of investment in partnership firms: 4.1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO to consider the balance in partners current account

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

4. Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D – Rs.1,48,94,208/-: 4.1 'Value of investment' in case of investment in partnership firms: 4.1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO to consider the balance in partners current account

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

M/S. ZAVERI & CO. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), 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

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