DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

254 of the paper book: “a) To promote research and development on the impact of the Art of Living techniques on the physical and mental states of people as formulated by Yoga Shiromani Sri Sri Pandit Ravishankar in the realm of Yoga and Meditation. b) To promote a scientific study and research of ancient literature and Yoga. c) To afford

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

254 of the paper book: “a) To promote research and development on the impact of the Art of Living techniques on the physical and mental states of people as formulated by Yoga Shiromani Sri Sri Pandit Ravishankar in the realm of Yoga and Meditation. b) To promote a scientific study and research of ancient literature and Yoga. c) To afford

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

254 of the paper book: “a) To promote research and development on the impact of the Art of Living techniques on the physical and mental states of people as formulated by Yoga Shiromani Sri Sri Pandit Ravishankar in the realm of Yoga and Meditation. b) To promote a scientific study and research of ancient literature and Yoga. c) To afford

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

254 of the paper book: “a) To promote research and development on the impact of the Art of Living techniques on the physical and mental states of people as formulated by Yoga Shiromani Sri Sri Pandit Ravishankar in the realm of Yoga and Meditation. b) To promote a scientific study and research of ancient literature and Yoga. c) To afford

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M & B ENGINEERING LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is thus dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

254], which hold that such Kind of commission is not taxable in India and accordingly no liability to deduct tax was there. Further the decision of honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Toshoku Limited 125 ITR 525 Still prevails as on date and is the law of the land as regards applicability of TDS provisions

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. M.G.F. GROWTH RESEARCH AND INVESTMENT LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the CO the assessee has taken up jurisdictional issue whereby it has pleaded that the assessment order is time ITA No.2311/Ahd/2016 with CO barred and the ld.CIT(A) has erred in not quashing the assessment order being time barred. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1 28-11-00 Return of income filed 2 31-03-03 Assessment order u/s. 143(3) of I.T. Act 3 05-03-04 Order passed by Hon’ble CIT(A) 4 03-12-04 Order passed by Hon’ble ITAT 5 29-12-04 Assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of I.T. Act 6 19-01-06 Order

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1 28-11-00 Return of income filed 2 31-03-03 Assessment order u/s. 143(3) of I.T. Act 3 05-03-04 Order passed by Hon’ble CIT(A) 4 03-12-04 Order passed by Hon’ble ITAT 5 29-12-04 Assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of I.T. Act 6 19-01-06 Order

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts