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

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

4) was claimed as an exempt income. The AO observed that the assessee has not made any disallowance under section 14A of the Act with respect to earning of such exempt income. The assessee submitted that the assessee has made investment in the earlier years of Rs. 7,21,490/- in the equity share of Union Bank of India which

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

4 The question No.2[b] proposed by the Revenue is with regard to deleting the addition under Section 14A of the Act, 1961 while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer while computing taxable income under Section 115JB of the Act, 1961 also added addition made under Section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive and erroneous. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive and erroneous. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive and erroneous. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive and erroneous. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill arising out of amalgamation of Rs.132,47,53,370/- u/s.32

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23rd July, 1969, is drawn where the taxability of 'Foreign Agents of Indian Exporters' was considered along with certain other specific situations. It had been clarified then that where

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23rd July, 1969, is drawn where the taxability of 'Foreign Agents of Indian Exporters' was considered along with certain other specific situations. It had been clarified then that where

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23rd July, 1969, is drawn where the taxability of 'Foreign Agents of Indian Exporters' was considered along with certain other specific situations. It had been clarified then that where