KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68,862 -62,28.791. Net Income 96,67,801 4,28,73,275 5,25,41,076 Actual receipt on sale of Nil Nil Nil CERs approved by UNFCC 41. While filing the return of income the assessee had excluded the income pertaining to CER and added back the expenditure incurred for earning such income in its total income

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

1-4-2018, a special provision has been enacted in the shape of section 115BBG which prescribe levy of tax at the rate of 10% on income from transfer of carbon credit. He took us through explanatory statement of Finance Act, 2017. 38. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Issue before

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

1-4-2018, a special provision has been enacted in the shape of section 115BBG which prescribe levy of tax at the rate of 10% on income from transfer of carbon credit. He took us through explanatory statement of Finance Act, 2017. 38. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Issue before

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68). This amount was considered in earlier year by the appellant by furnishing a revised computation of income and the appellant company has filed challan of Rs. 46,26,868/- on 02.11.2012 which is reflected in Form 26AS (PB 66). The said tax is paid on the basis of revised computation in which prior period income taken into consideration

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68). This amount was considered in earlier year by the appellant by furnishing a revised computation of income and the appellant company has filed challan of Rs. 46,26,868/- on 02.11.2012 which is reflected in Form 26AS (PB 66). The said tax is paid on the basis of revised computation in which prior period income taken into consideration

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

68,257 C Foreign Technician Supervision charges paid to Rs.31,58,605 Mr. Kenneth Harmston (UK) ITA nos.539/AHD/2018 & 1246/AHD/2016 Asstt. Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 3 Foreign Technician Supervision charges paid to Rs.37,33,847 Mr. Hunt Waugh Jr. (USA) Rs. Re-imbursement exps. Paid to Mr. Kenneth Rs.14,739 Harmston (UK) Rs. Re-imbursement exps. Paid to Mr. Hunt

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

68,257 C Foreign Technician Supervision charges paid to Rs.31,58,605 Mr. Kenneth Harmston (UK) ITA nos.539/AHD/2018 & 1246/AHD/2016 Asstt. Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 3 Foreign Technician Supervision charges paid to Rs.37,33,847 Mr. Hunt Waugh Jr. (USA) Rs. Re-imbursement exps. Paid to Mr. Kenneth Rs.14,739 Harmston (UK) Rs. Re-imbursement exps. Paid to Mr. Hunt

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

1) of the Act dated 02.05.2013 due to change of incumbent. Upon verification of the details during the course of assessment proceeding, it was found that the assessee company had made payment to non- residents amounting to Rs.71,43,952/- (Rs.63,76,114/- + Rs.1,36,260/- for consulting charges and Rs.6,31,578/- for supervision charges). The assessee was required

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

1) of the Act dated 02.05.2013 due to change of incumbent. Upon verification of the details during the course of assessment proceeding, it was found that the assessee company had made payment to non- residents amounting to Rs.71,43,952/- (Rs.63,76,114/- + Rs.1,36,260/- for consulting charges and Rs.6,31,578/- for supervision charges). The assessee was required

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

iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first

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

iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first

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

iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first

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

iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted