DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the book profit

ASCENT FINECHEM PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent (S) Appellant Respondent 1-2 438-439/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Ascent Finechem Pvt. A.C.I.T, Circle- & Ltd., 1(1)(2), 2009-10 11, Ground Floor, Ahmedabad. Suryarath, B/H. Whilte House, Panchawati, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan No.Aabca6349Q

6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The assessee in the instant case has claimed certain expenditure amounting to Rs. 35,74,125.00 in respect of its trading unit ITA NOS.438-439/Ahd/2018 & others For A.Ys 2008-09- 2009-10 & others but the same was allocated

ASCENT FINECHEM PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent (S) Appellant Respondent 1-2 438-439/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Ascent Finechem Pvt. A.C.I.T, Circle- & Ltd., 1(1)(2), 2009-10 11, Ground Floor, Ahmedabad. Suryarath, B/H. Whilte House, Panchawati, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan No.Aabca6349Q

6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The assessee in the instant case has claimed certain expenditure amounting to Rs. 35,74,125.00 in respect of its trading unit ITA NOS.438-439/Ahd/2018 & others For A.Ys 2008-09- 2009-10 & others but the same was allocated

ASCENT FINECHEM PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent (S) Appellant Respondent 1-2 438-439/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Ascent Finechem Pvt. A.C.I.T, Circle- & Ltd., 1(1)(2), 2009-10 11, Ground Floor, Ahmedabad. Suryarath, B/H. Whilte House, Panchawati, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan No.Aabca6349Q

6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The assessee in the instant case has claimed certain expenditure amounting to Rs. 35,74,125.00 in respect of its trading unit ITA NOS.438-439/Ahd/2018 & others For A.Ys 2008-09- 2009-10 & others but the same was allocated

ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

32A in various judicial pronouncements. Various High Courts of india have held that X-Ray machine is qualified for investment allowance under section The Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied upon the case of CIT v. Dr. S. Surender Reddy [2000] 243 ITR 110 (AP)(HC),Gauhati High Court in UT v. Down Town Hospital

ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICE LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

32A in various judicial pronouncements. Various High Courts of india have held that X-Ray machine is qualified for investment allowance under section The Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied upon the case of CIT v. Dr. S. Surender Reddy [2000] 243 ITR 110 (AP)(HC),Gauhati High Court in UT v. Down Town Hospital

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-8, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE SHARED SERVICES LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR SHARED SERVICES LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

32A, 33 and 41 which deal with concepts like Depreciation. The concept of Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VODAFONE SHARED SERVICES LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR SHARED SERVICES LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

32A, 33 and 41 which deal with concepts like Depreciation. The concept of Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VODAFONE SHARED SERVICES LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR SHARED SERVICES LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

32A, 33 and 41 which deal with concepts like Depreciation. The concept of Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation

VODAFONE BUSINESS SERVICES LIMITED ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE SHARED SERVICES LIMITED),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

32A, 33 and 41 which deal with concepts like Depreciation. The concept of Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation

SHRI DHANRAJ BAXIRAM CHOPRA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance made by the A.O. in respect of the appellant's claim for exemption/deduction of one house u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) and the A.O. failed to correctly interpret the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2014, wherein