GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

250 Income from Rentals-staff quarters 1,43,123 Income from water charges received from 9,332 employee contribution Recovery for Transport & Vehicle Exp. 31,917 (other than Staff) Sale of tender forms 60,500 Registration fees – suppliers, Contractors 2,00,000 Penalty against ADV for Employees 28,802 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,03,491 Ins. Premium recovered from

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4 SCC 485, 494. It was also understood as such by CBDT which issued Circular No. 779 dated 14-9-1999 containing Explanatory Notes on the provisions of the Finance Act, 1999 insofar as it related to direct taxes. It said in paras 5.2 and 5.3 : ‘5.2 The Act has expanded the existing Explanation which states that salary paid

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4 SCC 485, 494. It was also understood as such by CBDT which issued Circular No. 779 dated 14-9-1999 containing Explanatory Notes on the provisions of the Finance Act, 1999 insofar as it related to direct taxes. It said in paras 5.2 and 5.3 : ‘5.2 The Act has expanded the existing Explanation which states that salary paid

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4 SCC 485, 494. It was also understood as such by CBDT which issued Circular No. 779 dated 14-9-1999 containing Explanatory Notes on the provisions of the Finance Act, 1999 insofar as it related to direct taxes. It said in paras 5.2 and 5.3 : ‘5.2 The Act has expanded the existing Explanation which states that salary paid

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4 SCC 485, 494. It was also understood as such by CBDT which issued Circular No. 779 dated 14-9-1999 containing Explanatory Notes on the provisions of the Finance Act, 1999 insofar as it related to direct taxes. It said in paras 5.2 and 5.3 : ‘5.2 The Act has expanded the existing Explanation which states that salary paid

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

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. 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

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