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

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

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

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

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:

9 Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd Vs. DCIT AY :2014-15 7. Question No.6 concerns deletion of addition of Rs.89,00,000 made by the AO for computation of the income for the purposes of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under section 115JB of the Act. This pertained to the expenditure incurred for earning exempt income under section 14A read with Rule

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

9 on immediate payment basis. Therefore, as the purchases are made on credit basis, the purchase value is higher than the prevailing rate on the date of purchase from purchases which are made on immediate payment basis. The exports are made on immediate payment basis at the market value which is prevalent on the date of payment. Normally, the assessee

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

9 on immediate payment basis. Therefore, as the purchases are made on credit basis, the purchase value is higher than the prevailing rate on the date of purchase from purchases which are made on immediate payment basis. The exports are made on immediate payment basis at the market value which is prevalent on the date of payment. Normally, the assessee

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

9 on immediate payment basis. Therefore, as the purchases are made on credit basis, the purchase value is higher than the prevailing rate on the date of purchase from purchases which are made on immediate payment basis. The exports are made on immediate payment basis at the market value which is prevalent on the date of payment. Normally, the assessee

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

9. On the contrary the learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 141 and submitted that the provisions of section 10B(7) read with section 80 IA(10) of the Act can only be invoked in a situation where both the parties, the assessee and the closely connected party are based in India. However

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

DHOLU CONSTRUCTION & PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

801A of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted disallowance of depreciation already reduced and deducted by the appellant. 3 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance made by AO of Rs. 33, 375/- employees' contribution to PF u/s 2(24)(x) of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted disallowance

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)

9. First issue is Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act: The assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.25,32,679/- which is exempt from tax but the assessee has not allocated any expenditure to earn the exempt income. Therefore, AO invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act made disallowance of Rs.35,00,000/- as per Rule

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)

9. First issue is Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act: The assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.25,32,679/- which is exempt from tax but the assessee has not allocated any expenditure to earn the exempt income. Therefore, AO invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act made disallowance of Rs.35,00,000/- as per Rule