PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

164 ITR 102), and the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in Amrit Lal & Co. (108 ITR 719) and Ciba\nDyes Ltd. v. CIT (25 ITR 102), the Assessing Officer concluded that the mere\nproduction of vouchers was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof\nunder section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

164 ITR 102), and the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in Amrit Lal & Co. (108 ITR 719) and Ciba\nDyes Ltd. v. CIT (25 ITR 102), the Assessing Officer concluded that the mere\nproduction of vouchers was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof\nunder section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt

SHRI DINESH MILLS LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed and appellant fails in respect of Ground No.4.” Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 24. The ld. AR before us submitted that there was no extension in the existing business of the assessee. Therefore the interest expenses cannot be capitalized

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

164,32,79,863/. On perusal of the material on record, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had made substantial investment out of which it had earned substantial income claimed as exempt from tax. The exempt income was constituted 11% of the total profit earned by the assessee company however the assessee has not disallowed any amount according

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

164,32,79,863/. On perusal of the material on record, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had made substantial investment out of which it had earned substantial income claimed as exempt from tax. The exempt income was constituted 11% of the total profit earned by the assessee company however the assessee has not disallowed any amount according

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IE of the Act in Sikkim Unit on other incomes. 60. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed deduction of profit derived from Sikkim Unit under section 80-IE of the Act. As per the AO, there were certain incomes considered by the assessee eligible for deduction under section

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing the deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowances made by the AO against which the Revenue was in appeal before the ITAT in ITA No. 3541/Mum/2015 which has been vide order dated 16th May 2019 decided in the favour of the assessee. Thus, once the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction under section 80IE is upheld in the first year of claim, the same cannot

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 32 of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by an assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession. Under this section, for getting depreciation, the following two conditions should be satisfied: (i) The asset in question should be owned by the assessee; and (ii) The asset should