THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

12A) Nothing contained in sub-section (12) shall apply to any enterprise or undertaking which is transferred in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger on or after the 1st day of April, 2007.] 78[(13) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to any Special Economic Zones notified on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with

SHRI MANAV VIKAS FOUNDATION,CHAMARAJ, TL. VADHAVAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

disallowed. Furthermore, the appellant also requested to keep the present appeal proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of condonation application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Pr. CIT(Exemptions). New Delhi. In this regard, kind attention is drawn to the provisions of section 12A

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

VINAYAKA EDUCATION TRUST,NADIAD vs. THE DDIT, CPC, BENGALURU JURIS. AO- THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

12A(2) shields the\nassessee from denial of exemption for any intervening year where registration\nhas been granted subsequently. The technical non-mentioning of the new\nregistration number in the ITR does not override the substantive entitlement\nof the assessee to exemption under sections 11 and 12.\n7. We therefore hold that the denial of exemption by CPC under section

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

SHRI MAHUDI MADHUPURI JAIN NSM BHOJANSHALA & PRASHADI BHAVAN,,MAHUDI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, EXEMPTION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2. In the matter, the memorandum explaining the relevant provisions of the Finance Bill, 2017 reads as under: "as per the existing provisions of said section, the entities registered under section 12AA are required to file return of income under sub- section (4A) of section 139, if the total income without giving effect to the provisions of sections

TAPOVAN EDUCATION TRUST,VADODARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The reasons for the additions and denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act were that the assessee was unable to enter the details of registration granted to the assessee under Section 12A / 12AA of the Act. 23. Since we have already restored the issue regarding grant of registration under

TAPOVAN EDUCATION TRUST,,VADODARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The reasons for the additions and denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act were that the assessee was unable to enter the details of registration granted to the assessee under Section 12A / 12AA of the Act. 23. Since we have already restored the issue regarding grant of registration under

TAPOVAN EDUCATION TRUST,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CPC,, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The reasons for the additions and denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act were that the assessee was unable to enter the details of registration granted to the assessee under Section 12A / 12AA of the Act. 23. Since we have already restored the issue regarding grant of registration under