AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowance was made under Section 37(1) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that damages under Section 14B of the Act represent a penalty/damage for infringing statutory provisions and are not in the nature of compensation. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention that 40% of the damages should be considered compensatory

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowance was made under Section 37(1) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that damages under Section 14B of the Act represent a penalty/damage for infringing statutory provisions and are not in the nature of compensation. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention that 40% of the damages should be considered compensatory

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowance was made under Section 37(1) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that damages under Section 14B of the Act represent a penalty/damage for infringing statutory provisions and are not in the nature of compensation. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention that 40% of the damages should be considered compensatory

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowance was made under Section 37(1) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that damages under Section 14B of the Act represent a penalty/damage for infringing statutory provisions and are not in the nature of compensation. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention that 40% of the damages should be considered compensatory

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowance was made under Section 37(1) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that damages under Section 14B of the Act represent a penalty/damage for infringing statutory provisions and are not in the nature of compensation. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention that 40% of the damages should be considered compensatory

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowance was made under Section 37(1) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that damages under Section 14B of the Act represent a penalty/damage for infringing statutory provisions and are not in the nature of compensation. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention that 40% of the damages should be considered compensatory

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowance was made under Section 37(1) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that damages under Section 14B of the Act represent a penalty/damage for infringing statutory provisions and are not in the nature of compensation. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention that 40% of the damages should be considered compensatory

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowance was made under Section 37(1) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that damages under Section 14B of the Act represent a penalty/damage for infringing statutory provisions and are not in the nature of compensation. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention that 40% of the damages should be considered compensatory

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nirma Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-380 009 Circle-3(1)(1), Pan : Aaacn 5350 K Ahmedabad-380009 अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 10.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows:-

disallowed purely on the ground that the amendment to section 244A sub- section (a) & (aa) of the Act was made w.e.f. 01.06.2016 since the present appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore, the amended provisions of section 244A of the Act could not be made applicable for the year under appeal. 9. We have perused the judgement

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

199 ITR 43. iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

199 ITR 43. iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

199 ITR 43. iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

199 ITR 43. iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

199 ITR 43. iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

199 ITR 43. iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1), the CIT(A) noted that the expenses were taxed as perquisites in the hands of the directors, were supported by Form 16 and Form 12BA, and hence were not personal in nature. Accordingly, the disallowance was deleted. On the section 40A(3) addition of Rs. 4,09,590/-, the CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to produce supporting

ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1), the CIT(A) noted that the expenses were taxed as perquisites in the hands of the directors, were supported by Form 16 and Form 12BA, and hence were not personal in nature. Accordingly, the disallowance was deleted. On the section 40A(3) addition of Rs. 4,09,590/-, the CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to produce supporting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND vs. ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1), the CIT(A) noted that the expenses were taxed as perquisites in the hands of the directors, were supported by Form 16 and Form 12BA, and hence were not personal in nature. Accordingly, the disallowance was deleted. On the section 40A(3) addition of Rs. 4,09,590/-, the CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to produce supporting

ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, ANANAD CIRCLE, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1), the CIT(A) noted that the expenses were taxed as perquisites in the hands of the directors, were supported by Form 16 and Form 12BA, and hence were not personal in nature. Accordingly, the disallowance was deleted. On the section 40A(3) addition of Rs. 4,09,590/-, the CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to produce supporting