BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act with reference to net interest expenses of the assessee. The assessee partially succeeds on this ground of appeal.” We have also carefully considered the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Banaskantha Dist. Co-op Milk Producers’ Union Ltd. which was followed the decision passed by the Hon’ble Delhi

BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act with reference to net interest expenses of the assessee. The assessee partially succeeds on this ground of appeal.” We have also carefully considered the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Banaskantha Dist. Co-op Milk Producers’ Union Ltd. which was followed the decision passed by the Hon’ble Delhi

M/S. MATRIX COMSEC PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.2907/Ahd/2013 is allowed

Bench: Him, But When It Was Pointed Out To The Learned Cit(A), He Disposed Of The Same, By A Subsequent Order Dated 3Rd October, 2013, Which Is Separately In Appeal Before Us. He Submits That, In View Of This Subsequent Development, Ground No.3 Is Not Required To Be Adjudicated In This Appeal. Learned Departmental Representative Does Not Oppose The Submissions So Made By The Learned Counsel. We, Therefore, Dismiss Ground No.3 As Infructuous.

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: Rs.1,12,84,050/-]” 6. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) but without any success. While confirming the action of the Assessing

M/S. MATRIX COMSEC PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.2907/Ahd/2013 is allowed

Bench: Him, But When It Was Pointed Out To The Learned Cit(A), He Disposed Of The Same, By A Subsequent Order Dated 3Rd October, 2013, Which Is Separately In Appeal Before Us. He Submits That, In View Of This Subsequent Development, Ground No.3 Is Not Required To Be Adjudicated In This Appeal. Learned Departmental Representative Does Not Oppose The Submissions So Made By The Learned Counsel. We, Therefore, Dismiss Ground No.3 As Infructuous.

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: Rs.1,12,84,050/-]” 6. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) but without any success. While confirming the action of the Assessing

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PRECISION BEARING P. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniwith Co No. 109/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Add. Cit, Range-5 M/S Precision Bearing Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad 28A, Changodar Industrial Estate, Sanand Vs District – Ahmedabad . (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaacp 9205 H Revenue By Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. Dr/ Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.R. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.03.2022/23.06.2022(Virtual) Date Of 29.06.2022 Pronouncement

section 35A.” [Underlines supplied] ITA No. 1048/Ahd/2015 & CO No. 109/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 7 of 21 Therefore if the expenditure is revenue in nature, which is so in the present appeal, this amendment is not applicable. (iii) The Ld. AO has also observed in the assessment-order that most of the expenses related to the earlier years. To check