JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a “deduction provision” and not an “exemption provision”. Therefore, apparently there seems to be a difference of opinion to whether section 10A/B provisions qualify as “Exemption” or Deduction” provisions. Therefore, since it is well-settled principle of law that deduction provisions, which have been introduced in the Statute

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)

274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a “deduction provision” and not an “exemption provision”. Therefore, apparently there seems to be a difference of opinion to whether section 10A/B provisions qualify as “Exemption” or Deduction” provisions. Therefore, since it is well-settled principle of law that deduction provisions, which have been introduced in the Statute

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a “deduction provision” and not an “exemption provision”. Therefore, apparently there seems to be a difference of opinion to whether section 10A/B provisions qualify as “Exemption” or Deduction” provisions. Therefore, since it is well-settled principle of law that deduction provisions, which have been introduced in the Statute

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)

274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a “deduction provision” and not an “exemption provision”. Therefore, apparently there seems to be a difference of opinion to whether section 10A/B provisions qualify as “Exemption” or Deduction” provisions. Therefore, since it is well-settled principle of law that deduction provisions, which have been introduced in the Statute

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a “deduction provision” and not an “exemption provision”. Therefore, apparently there seems to be a difference of opinion to whether section 10A/B provisions qualify as “Exemption” or Deduction” provisions. Therefore, since it is well-settled principle of law that deduction provisions, which have been introduced in the Statute

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

2)(iii) of Rs.1,73,278/- was confirmed. Accordingly, the total disallowance sustained was Rs. 7,81,819/-. 10. On the issue of adjustment to book profit under section 115JB, the CIT(A) followed the Special Bench decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB)] and held that disallowance computed under section 14A could

THE MAHALAXMI CREDIT CO. OP. SOCIETY LTD.,,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3,, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2)(a)(i) granting deduction of profit from banking business has limited applications for granting benefit of deduction from profit from banking activities only to small co-op credit society having paid up share capital and reserves less than rupees one lakh only after introduction of section 80P(4) of the IT Act, 1961. . -. 6.4 In view of the above

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

2)(iii) of Rs.1,73,278/-\nwas confirmed. Accordingly, the total disallowance sustained was Rs.\n7,81,819/-.\n10.\nOn the issue of adjustment to book profit under section 115JB, the\nCIT(A) followed the Special Bench decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.)\nLtd. [165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB)] and held that disallowance computed under\nsection 14A could

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, M/S. Adani Enterprises Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Vs Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Ahmedabad Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009 Pan : Aabca 2804 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, Ar & Shri Biren Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022

2 Rs.161,59,58,333/- after making various additions/disallowances. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the Assessing Officer in respect of certain additions/disallowances made in the assessment. Meanwhile, an appeal was filed by the assessee in quantum proceedings against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot be resorted while determining the expenses as mentioned under clause (f) to explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. Hence we delete such addition. 19. In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No.3213/Ahd/2016 is partly allowed. 20. ITA No. 3299/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 : Revenue has filed following grounds

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot be resorted while determining the expenses as mentioned under clause (f) to explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. Hence we delete such addition. 19. In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No.3213/Ahd/2016 is partly allowed. 20. ITA No. 3299/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 : Revenue has filed following grounds

GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance of Rs.1,78,71,274/- in respect of donation claimed as deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter A.Y. 2020-21 Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 2

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 14A 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs 1,80,634/- out of total disallowance of Rs 2,12,799/- despite the IT(SS)A No. 27 to 30/Ahd/2021 and 14/Ahd/2022 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11 DCIT

INJECT CARE PARENTERALS PVT. LTD.,VAPI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 739/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Inject Care Parenterals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Plot No.130, Gidc, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Vapi, Ahmedabad. Gujarart.

2,97,572/- under section 36(1)(v) on account of delayed payment of PF/ESI (c) Disallowances of interest expenses of Rs. 1,530/- being capital in nature (d) Disallowances of Rs. 14,500/- on account of penalty to Sales Tax and Excise Department 3.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings initiated the penalty proceedings under section

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23rd July, 1969, is drawn where the taxability of 'Foreign Agents of Indian Exporters' was considered along with certain other specific situations. It had been clarified then that where

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23rd July, 1969, is drawn where the taxability of 'Foreign Agents of Indian Exporters' was considered along with certain other specific situations. It had been clarified then that where

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23rd July, 1969, is drawn where the taxability of 'Foreign Agents of Indian Exporters' was considered along with certain other specific situations. It had been clarified then that where

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23rd July, 1969, is drawn where the taxability of 'Foreign Agents of Indian Exporters' was considered along with certain other specific situations. It had been clarified then that where

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23rd July, 1969, is drawn where the taxability of 'Foreign Agents of Indian Exporters' was considered along with certain other specific situations. It had been clarified then that where