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

9 section 143(3) has already been made, the AO needs to be satisfied that there has been failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. There is no dispute vis-à-vis this provision of law. The fact that in the present case, reopening was resorted to beyond four years, and the assessment under section

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

9 section 143(3) has already been made, the AO needs to be satisfied that there has been failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. There is no dispute vis-à-vis this provision of law. The fact that in the present case, reopening was resorted to beyond four years, and the assessment under section

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

9 section 143(3) has already been made, the AO needs to be satisfied that there has been failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. There is no dispute vis-à-vis this provision of law. The fact that in the present case, reopening was resorted to beyond four years, and the assessment under section

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

vii), claim of deduction under general provisions of Sec. 28 r.w.s. 37(1) be directed to be allowed. 5. REPAIRS-BUILDING - PARTITION IN MUMBAI OFFICE - Rs.2,96,490 AND PARTITION IN CHENNAI OFFICE RS. 1,43,173 - (PARA 4.5, PAGE 18 OF APPELLATE ORDER) 5.1 CIT(A) has grievously erred in fact and in law in upholding disallowance of expenses

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

vii), claim of deduction under general provisions of Sec. 28 r.w.s. 37(1) be directed to be allowed. 5. REPAIRS-BUILDING - PARTITION IN MUMBAI OFFICE - Rs.2,96,490 AND PARTITION IN CHENNAI OFFICE RS. 1,43,173 - (PARA 4.5, PAGE 18 OF APPELLATE ORDER) 5.1 CIT(A) has grievously erred in fact and in law in upholding disallowance of expenses

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

vii), claim of deduction under general provisions of Sec. 28 r.w.s. 37(1) be directed to be allowed. 5. REPAIRS-BUILDING - PARTITION IN MUMBAI OFFICE - Rs.2,96,490 AND PARTITION IN CHENNAI OFFICE RS. 1,43,173 - (PARA 4.5, PAGE 18 OF APPELLATE ORDER) 5.1 CIT(A) has grievously erred in fact and in law in upholding disallowance of expenses

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

vii), claim of deduction under general provisions of Sec. 28 r.w.s. 37(1) be directed to be allowed. 5. REPAIRS-BUILDING - PARTITION IN MUMBAI OFFICE - Rs.2,96,490 AND PARTITION IN CHENNAI OFFICE RS. 1,43,173 - (PARA 4.5, PAGE 18 OF APPELLATE ORDER) 5.1 CIT(A) has grievously erred in fact and in law in upholding disallowance of expenses

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

vii), claim of deduction under general provisions of Sec. 28 r.w.s. 37(1) be directed to be allowed. 5. REPAIRS-BUILDING - PARTITION IN MUMBAI OFFICE - Rs.2,96,490 AND PARTITION IN CHENNAI OFFICE RS. 1,43,173 - (PARA 4.5, PAGE 18 OF APPELLATE ORDER) 5.1 CIT(A) has grievously erred in fact and in law in upholding disallowance of expenses

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

vii), claim of deduction under general provisions of Sec. 28 r.w.s. 37(1) be directed to be allowed. 5. REPAIRS-BUILDING - PARTITION IN MUMBAI OFFICE - Rs.2,96,490 AND PARTITION IN CHENNAI OFFICE RS. 1,43,173 - (PARA 4.5, PAGE 18 OF APPELLATE ORDER) 5.1 CIT(A) has grievously erred in fact and in law in upholding disallowance of expenses

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

vii), claim of deduction under general provisions of Sec. 28 r.w.s. 37(1) be directed to be allowed. 5. REPAIRS-BUILDING - PARTITION IN MUMBAI OFFICE - Rs.2,96,490 AND PARTITION IN CHENNAI OFFICE RS. 1,43,173 - (PARA 4.5, PAGE 18 OF APPELLATE ORDER) 5.1 CIT(A) has grievously erred in fact and in law in upholding disallowance of expenses

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

vii), claim of deduction under general provisions of Sec. 28 r.w.s. 37(1) be directed to be allowed. 5. REPAIRS-BUILDING - PARTITION IN MUMBAI OFFICE - Rs.2,96,490 AND PARTITION IN CHENNAI OFFICE RS. 1,43,173 - (PARA 4.5, PAGE 18 OF APPELLATE ORDER) 5.1 CIT(A) has grievously erred in fact and in law in upholding disallowance of expenses

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

vii), claim of deduction under general provisions of Sec. 28 r.w.s. 37(1) be directed to be allowed. 5. REPAIRS-BUILDING - PARTITION IN MUMBAI OFFICE - Rs.2,96,490 AND PARTITION IN CHENNAI OFFICE RS. 1,43,173 - (PARA 4.5, PAGE 18 OF APPELLATE ORDER) 5.1 CIT(A) has grievously erred in fact and in law in upholding disallowance of expenses

THE DY.CIT (INT.-TAXA.)-1, , AHMEDABAD vs. ZYDUS LIFSCIENCE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

9(1)(vii) of the Act. The FTS also covered under the provisions of article 12 of India-Sri Lanka DTAA. Therefore, the payment made to Asstt. Year- 2012-13 7 impugned party is liable to be withholding tax as per the provision of section 195 of the Act. 12. Regarding the payment made to Cambridgesoft Coro

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

vii) The proceedings for Assessment year 2002-03 shall stand remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall determine as to whether the assessee has incurred any expenditure (direct or indirect) in relation to dividend income / income from mutual funds which does not form part of the total income as contemplated under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer

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

vii) of the Act were not met is factually and legally incorrect. The details and evidence provided by the assessee were not given due consideration, despite being placed on record. The rejection of the alternate claim under Section 28 on grounds of lack of evidence is also unsustainable, as the nature of the transactions clearly demonstrates their nexus

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

vii) of the Act were not met is factually and legally incorrect. The details and evidence provided by the assessee were not given due consideration, despite being placed on record. The rejection of the alternate claim under Section 28 on grounds of lack of evidence is also unsustainable, as the nature of the transactions clearly demonstrates their nexus

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1)(vii) of the Act, the amount payable by the resident to non-resident towards fees for technical services is not taxable in India, if the said services are railed for earning income from any source outside India. The said provisions section 9(i)(vii) are reproduced below: "(2) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1)(vii) of the Act, the amount payable by the resident to non-resident towards fees for technical services is not taxable in India, if the said services are railed for earning income from any source outside India. The said provisions section 9(i)(vii) are reproduced below: "(2) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1)(vii) of the Act, the amount payable by the resident to non-resident towards fees for technical services is not taxable in India, if the said services are railed for earning income from any source outside India. The said provisions section 9(i)(vii) are reproduced below: "(2) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise