THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

transferred to the appellants across the country. There is also no evidence of excess procurement of raw materials. It is also claimed by the appellants that calorific value of the gas supplied by GAIL vary in GCV (Gross Calorific Value) and NCV (Net Calorific Value) which also effect consumption of gas alongwith the type of frit grade manufactured

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

transferred to the appellants across the country. There is also no evidence of excess procurement of raw materials. It is also claimed by the appellants that calorific value of the gas supplied by GAIL vary in GCV (Gross Calorific Value) and NCV (Net Calorific Value) which also effect consumption of gas alongwith the type of frit grade manufactured

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

transferred to the appellants across the country. There is also no evidence of excess procurement of raw materials. It is also claimed by the appellants that calorific value of the gas supplied by GAIL vary in GCV (Gross Calorific Value) and NCV (Net Calorific Value) which also effect consumption of gas alongwith the type of frit grade manufactured

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee was that

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee was that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee was that

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee was that

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee was that

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee was that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee was that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee was that