M.V. OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly direct the A.O. to delete the penalty so levied. Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri S. S. Godara)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Assessee filed a detailed reply claiming that the provision for gratuity was in fact as per and in accordance with the accrual system of accounting regularly employed by the company and the auditor has not pointed out any error or irregularity in creating such provision. The preliminary expenses debited to the profit

ADANI AGRI FRESH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal and the Cross Objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1653/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 & C.O. 201/Ahd/2015 (In Ita No.2720/Ahd/2015) "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Adani Agri Fresh Ltd., D.C.I.T, Adani House, Vs. Circle-1, Nr. Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aafca0413P

35D. 6. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining addition of Rs.40.354 out of total such addition of Rs.2.19.204 made by the learned Assessing Officer u/s. 41(1) on the ground that the appellant's dues to certain creditors having remained outstanding for a period

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD), CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

35D of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the proportionate expenses of ₹9,94,421/- being 1/5th of Rs. 49,72,106/- which was claimed in the relevant year i.e. AY 2000-01 and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. The AO for the under consideration following the order for the assessment year 2000-01 has also

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-8(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

35D of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the proportionate expenses of ₹9,94,421/- being 1/5th of Rs. 49,72,106/- which was claimed in the relevant year i.e. AY 2000-01 and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. The AO for the under consideration following the order for the assessment year 2000-01 has also

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

35D of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the proportionate expenses of ₹9,94,421/- being 1/5th of Rs. 49,72,106/- which was claimed in the relevant year i.e. AY 2000-01 and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. The AO for the under consideration following the order for the assessment year 2000-01 has also

THE ACIT,(OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

35D of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the proportionate expenses of ₹9,94,421/- being 1/5th of Rs. 49,72,106/- which was claimed in the relevant year i.e. AY 2000-01 and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. The AO for the under consideration following the order for the assessment year 2000-01 has also

ELECTROTHERM (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore the learned AO be directed to drop the penalty proceedings. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter and delete any grounds of appeal before the final hearing” 3. Ground No. 1 relates to addition on account of employees contribution to PF under Section 36(1)(va) to the tune

THE JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ELECTROTHERM (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore the learned AO be directed to drop the penalty proceedings. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter and delete any grounds of appeal before the final hearing” 3. Ground No. 1 relates to addition on account of employees contribution to PF under Section 36(1)(va) to the tune

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

section 153A of the Act is to be treated as return\nfiled under section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee\nhas borrowed this proposition to contend that accordingly fresh\nclaims can be made in returns filed u/s 153A of the Act. But, we find,\nthat these decisions have been rendered while addressing completely\ndifferent issue, relating

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

NEWTON ENGINEERING & CHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad

section applicable to facts of the case for confirming penalty. It be so held now. iii. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty levied not appreciating that claim disallowed due to non acceptance of explanation of the appellant cannot be subjected to automatic levy of penalty in absence of cogent evidence of concealment of income