GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Abs Tower, Old Circle 1(1)(1), Padra Road, Baroda-390007 Baroda Pan : Aaacg 6725 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.12.2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta:

disallowance of deduction following the orders of the learned CIT(A) in the case of the assessee itself in AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12 and the directions of the DRP in AY 2013-14. 14 Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd Vs. DCIT AY :2014-15 16. Before us, learned Counsel for the assessee contended that this issue was also decided

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 801A(9) of the Act despite the fact that no deduction u/s. 801A was claimed by the Appellant. Disallowance

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 801A(9) of the Act despite the fact that no deduction u/s. 801A was claimed by the Appellant. Disallowance

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 801A(9) of the Act despite the fact that no deduction u/s. 801A was claimed by the Appellant. Disallowance

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 801A(9) of the Act despite the fact that no deduction u/s. 801A was claimed by the Appellant. Disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZAVERI & COMPANY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance by applying sub-section 5 of section 80IA and computing the quantum of deduction u/s.80IA after deduction of notional brought forward losses. The appellant has contended that there were no such brought forward losses in its case since the same had already been set off in earlier years against the income of other undertakings of the appellant

M/S. ZAVERI & CO. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance by applying sub-section 5 of section 80IA and computing the quantum of deduction u/s.80IA after deduction of notional brought forward losses. The appellant has contended that there were no such brought forward losses in its case since the same had already been set off in earlier years against the income of other undertakings of the appellant

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZAVERI & COMPANY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance by applying sub-section 5 of section 80IA and computing the quantum of deduction u/s.80IA after deduction of notional brought forward losses. The appellant has contended that there were no such brought forward losses in its case since the same had already been set off in earlier years against the income of other undertakings of the appellant

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 801A(10) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not arranged its business transactions with its associate concern to earn more than ordinary profits. 2. The learned C1T(A) has erred in law and, on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned Assessing officer in estimating the profit

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

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

disallowance of overheads expenses of Rs. 26,719/-. 2. Alternatively, Objection No.1, the learned Commissioner of Appeals-VIII, Ahmedabad erred in not adding back overhead expenses of Rs. 26,719/- while computing the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business

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

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

disallowance of overheads expenses of Rs. 26,719/-. 2. Alternatively, Objection No.1, the learned Commissioner of Appeals-VIII, Ahmedabad erred in not adding back overhead expenses of Rs. 26,719/- while computing the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business

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

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

disallowance of overheads expenses of Rs. 26,719/-. 2. Alternatively, Objection No.1, the learned Commissioner of Appeals-VIII, Ahmedabad erred in not adding back overhead expenses of Rs. 26,719/- while computing the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

section 801A(8) and 801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 The learned AO, without requiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in observing that apportionment of expenses has been done on mechanical basis & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

section 801A(8) and 801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 The learned AO, without requiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in observing that apportionment of expenses has been done on mechanical basis & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

section 801A(8) and 801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 The learned AO, without requiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in observing that apportionment of expenses has been done on mechanical basis & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing the deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted