ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

253 ITR 749 wherein it is held as under: "Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with sections 198 and 309 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment year 1979-80 - Whether when vehicles belonging to an assessee-company are used by its directors, for personal or other purposes, it would be wrong

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

5 others A.Y.2013-14 43 account of benchmarking of loan to AE. Thus, the ground of the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Capital Infusion. 55. The TPO found that the assessee during the year has made payment of share application money to the following AEs: S. Name of AE Amount in Rs. Date of Date of share

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

5)\nand Rs.7,88,200/- made out of soil filling expenses (Ground No. 6) on the\nground of lack of documentation. The Revenue, on the other hand, has\nchallenged the CIT(A)'s action of restricting the disallowance of site\ndevelopment expenses to Rs.7,88,200/- as against Rs.78,82,000/- made by\nthe AO, contending that such expenses

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 20. As regards to ground no.6 of assessee’s appeal relating to disallowance of Sundry Balances written off, the Ld. A.R. submitted that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 1995-96 being ITA No. 1086/Ahd/2011 order 14.12.2017 & A.Y. 1998-99 being ITA No. 1956/Ahd/2001 order dated 29.08.2008. Alternatively

THE DCIT, BARODA CIRCLE-1,, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 20. As regards to ground no.6 of assessee’s appeal relating to disallowance of Sundry Balances written off, the Ld. A.R. submitted that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 1995-96 being ITA No. 1086/Ahd/2011 order 14.12.2017 & A.Y. 1998-99 being ITA No. 1956/Ahd/2001 order dated 29.08.2008. Alternatively

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 14A could not be made applicable to investments which are capable ofgenerating taxable income; and 6 The investment made by the Appellant in the partnership firm Is strategic in nature and not forthe purpose of earning exempt income. 13.2 Without Prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing the selling and distribution expenses u/s. 14A without

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 14A could not be made applicable to investments which are capable ofgenerating taxable income; and 6 The investment made by the Appellant in the partnership firm Is strategic in nature and not forthe purpose of earning exempt income. 13.2 Without Prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing the selling and distribution expenses u/s. 14A without

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 14A could not be made applicable to investments which are capable ofgenerating taxable income; and 6 The investment made by the Appellant in the partnership firm Is strategic in nature and not forthe purpose of earning exempt income. 13.2 Without Prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing the selling and distribution expenses u/s. 14A without

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 14A could not be made applicable to investments which are capable ofgenerating taxable income; and 6 The investment made by the Appellant in the partnership firm Is strategic in nature and not forthe purpose of earning exempt income. 13.2 Without Prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing the selling and distribution expenses u/s. 14A without

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

5 others A.Y. 2010-11 42 60.9 The learned CIT (A) also found that there were instances where the assessee has shown more income than the amount shown in the form 26AS. But the AO has only selected those items where the income was shown less in the profit and loss account than the amount shown in form 26AS which

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

5 others A.Y. 2010-11 42 60.9 The learned CIT (A) also found that there were instances where the assessee has shown more income than the amount shown in the form 26AS. But the AO has only selected those items where the income was shown less in the profit and loss account than the amount shown in form 26AS which

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

5 others A.Y. 2010-11 42 60.9 The learned CIT (A) also found that there were instances where the assessee has shown more income than the amount shown in the form 26AS. But the AO has only selected those items where the income was shown less in the profit and loss account than the amount shown in form 26AS which

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

5 others A.Y. 2010-11 42 60.9 The learned CIT (A) also found that there were instances where the assessee has shown more income than the amount shown in the form 26AS. But the AO has only selected those items where the income was shown less in the profit and loss account than the amount shown in form 26AS which

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

5 others A.Y. 2010-11 42 60.9 The learned CIT (A) also found that there were instances where the assessee has shown more income than the amount shown in the form 26AS. But the AO has only selected those items where the income was shown less in the profit and loss account than the amount shown in form 26AS which

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

5 others A.Y. 2010-11 42 60.9 The learned CIT (A) also found that there were instances where the assessee has shown more income than the amount shown in the form 26AS. But the AO has only selected those items where the income was shown less in the profit and loss account than the amount shown in form 26AS which

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 01.04.2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 17 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT