THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

801A of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 9. "that the Id. CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in allowing deduction it/s. 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 196] on account of Sale of scraps amounting to Rs. 10,45,41,099/-. " 10 ''that the Id. CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in allowing deduction ii/s

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:

10. The learned Departmental Representative was unable to controvert the above contention of the assessee that both the issues were covered by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and the Special Bench decision of the ITAT as stated by the learned Counsel for the assessee before us 12 Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd Vs. DCIT

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

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

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 without appreciating the provisions of the law in proper perspective. Disallowance u/s 801HHC: 9 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80HHC of the Act on lease rent income. 10

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 without appreciating the provisions of the law in proper perspective. Disallowance u/s 801HHC: 9 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80HHC of the Act on lease rent income. 10

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 without appreciating the provisions of the law in proper perspective. Disallowance u/s 801HHC: 9 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80HHC of the Act on lease rent income. 10

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 without appreciating the provisions of the law in proper perspective. Disallowance u/s 801HHC: 9 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80HHC of the Act on lease rent income. 10

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. 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

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

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

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(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 ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

801A(4) of the I.T Act in respect of the 10( ten) projects as reproduced in para 2.2.4 of this appellate order.” 5. Aggrieved by the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal , and the assessee has filed CO, for assessment year 2007-08. The ld. Sr. DR, Shri Chetram Meena

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

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

801A(4) of the I.T Act in respect of the 10( ten) projects as reproduced in para 2.2.4 of this appellate order.” 5. Aggrieved by the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal , and the assessee has filed CO, for assessment year 2007-08. The ld. Sr. DR, Shri Chetram Meena