THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance made of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 27. The solitary dispute for consideration, it was pointed out, related to the manner of computation of provision for bad and doubtful debts. The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, a Scheduled Bank or Cooperative

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

M/S. TRIO ELEVATORS COMPANY (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1725-1726/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S. Trio Elevators Company (India)Ltd., D.C.I.T., 404, Shivam Complex, Vs. Circle-4(1)(2), Bhuyangdev Cross Road, Gandhinagar. Sola Road, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aacct4923E

section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. We cannot decide the matter on the basis of apprehensions/desirability. It is always open to the Assessing Officer to call for details of individual debtor's account if the Assessing Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that assessee has claimed deduction, twice over. In fact, that exercise has been undertaken in ITA nos.1725

M/S. TRIO ELEVATORS COMPANY (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1725-1726/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S. Trio Elevators Company (India)Ltd., D.C.I.T., 404, Shivam Complex, Vs. Circle-4(1)(2), Bhuyangdev Cross Road, Gandhinagar. Sola Road, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aacct4923E

section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. We cannot decide the matter on the basis of apprehensions/desirability. It is always open to the Assessing Officer to call for details of individual debtor's account if the Assessing Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that assessee has claimed deduction, twice over. In fact, that exercise has been undertaken in ITA nos.1725

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

36. Aggrieved assessee preferred an to appeal before the learned CIT-A who allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in its own assessee for the A.Y. 2005- 06 and 2009-10. 37. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

36. Aggrieved assessee preferred an to appeal before the learned CIT-A who allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in its own assessee for the A.Y. 2005- 06 and 2009-10. 37. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

36. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs.73,20,990/- under section 35(1)(iv), being capital expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for scientific research in the assessee’s approved R&D facility. This ground of appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Ground No. 4 - Disallowance under Section

M/S.HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

disallowed and also as to why the first proviso of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act should not be applied

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36(1)(vii), write back of such provision cannot give rise to an income under section 41(1) of the Act. We therefore decline to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. This ground is rejected.” 43. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee’s own case, Ground No. 1

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36(1)(vii), write back of such provision cannot give rise to an income under section 41(1) of the Act. We therefore decline to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. This ground is rejected.” 43. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee’s own case, Ground No. 1

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36(1)(vii), write back of such provision cannot give rise to an income under section 41(1) of the Act. We therefore decline to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. This ground is rejected.” 43. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee’s own case, Ground No. 1

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36(1)(vii), write back of such provision cannot give rise to an income under section 41(1) of the Act. We therefore decline to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. This ground is rejected.” 43. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee’s own case, Ground No. 1

THE ASST. CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) on the grounds of insufficient evidence and nonfulfilment of conditions under Section 36(1)(vii

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) on the grounds of insufficient evidence and nonfulfilment of conditions under Section 36(1)(vii

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) on the grounds of\ninsufficient evidence and nonfulfilment of conditions under Section 36(1)(vii

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) on the grounds of\ninsufficient evidence and nonfulfilment of conditions under Section 36(1)(vii

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deduction was claimed.  The AO disallowed the deduction