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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

disallowed the claim holding that the motor cars were\nregistered in the names of the directors of the assessee company, that no\nevidence was furnished to establish their use for the purposes of the\nassessee's business, and therefore the conditions of section 32 of the Act,\nwere not fulfilled. In Ground No. 8, the Revenue has further assailed

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

disallowed the claim holding that the motor cars were\nregistered in the names of the directors of the assessee company, that no\nevidence was furnished to establish their use for the purposes of the\nassessee's business, and therefore the conditions of section 32 of the Act,\nwere not fulfilled. In Ground No. 8, the Revenue has further assailed

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

disallowed the claim holding that the motor cars were\nregistered in the names of the directors of the assessee company, that no\nevidence was furnished to establish their use for the purposes of the\nassessee's business, and therefore the conditions of section 32 of the Act,\nwere not fulfilled. In Ground No. 8, the Revenue has further assailed

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

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions precedent and the assessee was only a contractor not a developer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that

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

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions precedent and the assessee was only a contractor not a developer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that

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

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions precedent and the assessee was only a contractor not a developer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

253 Less: Already disallowed in the return Rs. 1,00,000) 3. Disallowance U/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of Rs. 1,10,47,762/- in addition to disallowance u/s 14A made in the assessment order dated 24-09-21 while Calculating Book Profit U/s. 115JB of the Act – MAT (Disallowance as computed in Revision Order dated

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 44 65. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has made huge investments amounting to "59,11,96,725/- which will generate the exempted income. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that the disallowance under section 14A read

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 44 65. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has made huge investments amounting to "59,11,96,725/- which will generate the exempted income. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that the disallowance under section 14A read

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 44 65. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has made huge investments amounting to "59,11,96,725/- which will generate the exempted income. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that the disallowance under section 14A read

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 44 65. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has made huge investments amounting to "59,11,96,725/- which will generate the exempted income. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that the disallowance under section 14A read

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 44 65. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has made huge investments amounting to "59,11,96,725/- which will generate the exempted income. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that the disallowance under section 14A read

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 44 65. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has made huge investments amounting to "59,11,96,725/- which will generate the exempted income. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that the disallowance under section 14A read

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

253 (Ahmedabad) 10. At this juncture, Ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked at bar to demonstrate with evidence as to how the loan given in the present case would qualify as quasi capital and or given for commercial expediency of the assessee as were the facts in the case of Micro Inks Ltd. (supra) referred

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

253 (Ahmedabad) 10. At this juncture, Ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked at bar to demonstrate with evidence as to how the loan given in the present case would qualify as quasi capital and or given for commercial expediency of the assessee as were the facts in the case of Micro Inks Ltd. (supra) referred

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

253 (Ahmedabad) 10. At this juncture, Ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked at bar to demonstrate with evidence as to how the loan given in the present case would qualify as quasi capital and or given for commercial expediency of the assessee as were the facts in the case of Micro Inks Ltd. (supra) referred

CERA SANITARYWARE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee submitted a detailed reply, the same was considered since the details of annual average of the monthly average of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment in tax free bonds comes to Rs.14,91,73,253/-. Therefore, as per section