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

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

Section 14A read with Rule 8D, to make disallowance of Rs.76,15,655/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(b) and Rs. 8,97,050/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(c). The ld. CIT(A) partially confirmed the additions by excluding bank guarantee commission, legal/stamp duty charges and bank charges which were added

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

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

c) would include the amount set aside for provisions made for meeting liabilities other than ascertained liabilities. For applicability of this clause, therefore, fundamental facts would have to be brought on record which in the present case, the Revenue has not done. In fact, the entire thrust of the Revenue's argument at the outset appears to be on clause

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

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

c) would include the amount set aside for provisions made for meeting liabilities other than ascertained liabilities. For applicability of this clause, therefore, fundamental facts would have to be brought on record which in the present case, the Revenue has not done. In fact, the entire thrust of the Revenue's argument at the outset appears to be on clause

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv) and would be allowable expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 348 (Mad.), wherein, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that where the assessee had incurred expenditure in connection with issuance of Euro share

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv) and would be allowable expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 348 (Mad.), wherein, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that where the assessee had incurred expenditure in connection with issuance of Euro share

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT,(OSD)-1,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv) and would be allowable expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 348 (Mad.), wherein, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that where the assessee had incurred expenditure in connection with issuance of Euro share

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT,(OSD)-1,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv) and would be allowable expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 348 (Mad.), wherein, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that where the assessee had incurred expenditure in connection with issuance of Euro share

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv) and would be allowable expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 348 (Mad.), wherein, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that where the assessee had incurred expenditure in connection with issuance of Euro share

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv) and would be allowable expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 348 (Mad.), wherein, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that where the assessee had incurred expenditure in connection with issuance of Euro share

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

section 153A of the Act is to be treated as return\nfiled under section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee\nhas borrowed this proposition to contend that accordingly fresh\nclaims can be made in returns filed u/s 153A of the Act. But, we find,\nthat these decisions have been rendered while addressing completely\ndifferent issue, relating

GUJARAT GAS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we are of the considered view that Ld

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.969/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gujarat Gas Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner of 2, Shanti Sadan Society, Income Tax-3, Opp. Parimal Garden, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad S.O., Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No.AAECG8093Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, A.R. Respondent