THE DCIT, (OSD)- 1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHADEV PULSES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

disallowance on account of 80IB(11A) of the IT. Act. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4.It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be quashed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. The facts

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGA, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of entire deduction under Section. 80P(2) of the Act of Rs. 40,84,182/-. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the bifurcation of deduction under Section. 80P of Rs. 40,84,182/- into Section 80P(2)(c) at Rs. 50,000/- and Section 80P(2)(d) at Rs. 40,34,182/-. The Ld. CIT(A) ought

M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that now the entire controversy relating to proceedings initiated by the Central Excise Directorate in the assessee’s own case has been decided in favour of the assessee by CESTAT, Ahmedabad in Excise Appeal No. 10523 of 2016 –DB vide order dated 08.12.2023, wherein it has been held that the purchases made

M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that now the entire controversy relating to proceedings initiated by the Central Excise Directorate in the assessee’s own case has been decided in favour of the assessee by CESTAT, Ahmedabad in Excise Appeal No. 10523 of 2016 –DB vide order dated 08.12.2023, wherein it has been held that the purchases made

M/S. ANAND FOOD & DAIRY PRODUCTS,,ANAND vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1310/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Anand Food & Dairy Dcit, Anand Circle Products Vs Anand. Chikhodra-Sarsa Road Chikhodra 388 320 Pan : Aaefa 0212 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.Dr

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IB(11A) of the Act. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very submitted

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KETAN V. SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Itano.3288/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

disallowance of Rs.2,41,216/- U/S.14A of IT Act, by not appreciating that assessee is engaged in the business of transacting in shares and therefore the dividend income of Rs. 2, 54, 9847- and LTCG of Rs. 82,32, 61 57- is his business income and does not qualify as exempt income under rule 8D of Section 14A. 3. That

MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 92B. As for the postamendment law and the impact of amendment in the definition of 'international transaction', the matter was again decided in favour of the assessee by Bharti Airtel Ltd. decision (supra) on the peculiar facts of that case. The Meghmani Organics Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2009-10 decisions like Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (supra) and Aditya Birla

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMNAGAR,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmeddy. Cit(Exemptions), Vs. Jamnagar Area Development Circle-2, Authority, 1St Floor, Dr. Hedgeshwar Ahmedabad. Commercial Complex, Near M.P. Shah College, Sat Rasta, Jamnagar – 361 001. [Pan No. Aaalj 0188 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

11A & 11(1)(a) of the Act. Further, disallowance of capital expenditure was made. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned CIT(A) who after considering the submission partly allowed the appeal thereby the Learned CIT(A) following decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

MANPASAND BEVERAGES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of an amount of Rs. 1,55,239/- u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act, being I.T.A

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1) NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2003-04 Nirma Limited Dcit, Cir.3(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. Ashram Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaacn 5350 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Revenue By Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/04/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

11A. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the insurance claim has no element of export turnover and that consequently it must sustain a reduction of ninety per cent under Expln. (baa). Now it is necessary to note that Expln. (baa) in terms does not refer to export turnover. Sub-section (1) of section 80HHC contemplates a deduction

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

11A) by Investigation Wing, depositor has stated that she has given unsecured loan to the appellant out of her savings and income shown in return of income. As stated supra, the appellant is not required to prove source of source. Considering this fact, addition made by AO for Rs.70,55,000/- is deleted. 6.19 ln view of above discussion