THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 1,87,58,401/- , vide assessment order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , which appeal stood

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 1,87,58,401/- , vide assessment order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , which appeal stood

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGG. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 1,87,58,401/- , vide assessment order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , which appeal stood

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 1,87,58,401/- , vide assessment order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , which appeal stood

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

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

MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD.,,KUTCH vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

disallowed the claim u/s. 801A(4) on the ground that assessee has not satisfied the condition laid down in section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD.,, KUTCH

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

disallowed the claim u/s. 801A(4) on the ground that assessee has not satisfied the condition laid down in section

M/S. MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD.,,KUTCH vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

disallowed the claim u/s. 801A(4) on the ground that assessee has not satisfied the condition laid down in section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD.,, KUTCH

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

disallowed the claim u/s. 801A(4) on the ground that assessee has not satisfied the condition laid down in section

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED , SINDHU BHAWAN ROAD, BODAKDEV

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 80IA(13) of the Act, consequently the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Thus the AO denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED, MONTECARLO HOUSE, SINDHU BHAWA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 80IA(13) of the Act, consequently the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Thus the AO denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before

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

disallowances, therefore,\nmade was to be treated as business income of the assessee alone, and\nholding so, he held that the assessee was not liable to be taxed at a\nspecial rate under section 115BBE of the Act nor the assessee to be\ndenied deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act on account of the\nsame.\n72. We have

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

4– 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in restricting the deduction u/s 80HHC by invoking the provision of section 801A(9) of the Act without appreciating the facts on record in proper perspective. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing

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

4– 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in restricting the deduction u/s 80HHC by invoking the provision of section 801A(9) of the Act without appreciating the facts on record in proper perspective. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing

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

4– 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in restricting the deduction u/s 80HHC by invoking the provision of section 801A(9) of the Act without appreciating the facts on record in proper perspective. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing

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

4– 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in restricting the deduction u/s 80HHC by invoking the provision of section 801A(9) of the Act without appreciating the facts on record in proper perspective. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VEJALPUR vs. MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD. , KACHCHH

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

disallowed the claim u/s. 801A(4) on the ground that assessee has not satisfied the condition laid down in section