INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

carried forward for set off in subsequent assessment year was incurred prior to 1st Oct., 2004 when s. 10(38) was not in existence. The case of the Revenue is that such loss is adjustable against the long-term capital gains, which were under the same head though the same was exempt under

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

carried forward for set off in subsequent assessment year was incurred prior to 1st Oct., 2004 when s. 10(38) was not in existence. The case of the Revenue is that such loss is adjustable against the long-term capital gains, which were under the same head though the same was exempt under

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

carried forward for set off in subsequent assessment year was incurred prior to 1st Oct., 2004 when s. 10(38) was not in existence. The case of the Revenue is that such loss is adjustable against the long-term capital gains, which were under the same head though the same was exempt under

LOXIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the captioned appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

carry forward of business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. 20.3 The amendments have been brought into effect retrospectively from 1-4-2001 and have been made applicable to business losses or unabsorbed depreciation arising in the assessment year 2001-02 and subsequent years." ITA No. 1564/Ahd/18 [Loxim Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT(OSD)] A.Y. 2011-12 - 7 - 5. From the above

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

House property and income from other sources which are not "Profit derived from the business of power" and hence not to be considered for deduction Under Section 80 IA. The assessee is not eligible for carry forward any loss

M/S. OCEANIC BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

carried out on a systematic and on regular basis in the nature of business. Therefore, such income was required to be taxed as the business income. 12. It was also pointed out that the assessee company has no other activity and this is the only activity and business. For substantiation of this contention, the extracts of the Profit & Loss account

PHELIX APPLIANCES LIMITED,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1310/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) Phelix Appliances Ltd. The Income Tax बनाम/ 9, B, Shitalkunj Society Officer Vs. Manjalpur Ward-4(2) Baroda - 390 010 Baroda – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 1857 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Jaya Chaudhary, Sr.Dr

house property income which was disallowed by the authorities below on the ground that there was no business activity carried out by the assessee during the year. Phelix Appliances Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2009-10 25.1. In this regard, we note that whether there was any business activity in the year under consideration or not is no point of dispute

CHIRAYU EXIM PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2819/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

carried forward under this section for more than four assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed. Explanation.- Where any part of the business of a company (other than a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads "Interest on securities", "Income from house property

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed as only “income from business”. Since the Tribunal found that the house property had been used by the assessee as a part of the business and treated as business, the finding of the Tribunal that the income from the property could

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed as only “income from business”. Since the Tribunal found that the house property had been used by the assessee as a part of the business and treated as business, the finding of the Tribunal that the income from the property could

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed as only “income from business”. Since the Tribunal found that the house property had been used by the assessee as a part of the business and treated as business, the finding of the Tribunal that the income from the property could

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed as only “income from business”. Since the Tribunal found that the house property had been used by the assessee as a part of the business and treated as business, the finding of the Tribunal that the income from the property could

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed as only “income from business”. Since the Tribunal found that the house property had been used by the assessee as a part of the business and treated as business, the finding of the Tribunal that the income from the property could

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed as only “income from business”. Since the Tribunal found that the house property had been used by the assessee as a part of the business and treated as business, the finding of the Tribunal that the income from the property could

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VYAPTI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

house property, therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 2505/Ahd/2017 filed by assessee 9. The ground no. 1 of the appeal of the assessee pertaining to disallowance of Rs. 28,430/- on account of delay in depositing employees contribution to PF and ESIC is dismissed as not pressed. The second ground of appeal

VYAPTI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

house property, therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 2505/Ahd/2017 filed by assessee 9. The ground no. 1 of the appeal of the assessee pertaining to disallowance of Rs. 28,430/- on account of delay in depositing employees contribution to PF and ESIC is dismissed as not pressed. The second ground of appeal

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

House Property ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

House Property ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund