S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

va)/43B. Now, coming to the issue of allowability u/s 37(1), we firstly refer the verdict of section 37(1) which reads as under: “37. General (1) any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

va)/43B. Now, coming to the issue of allowability u/s 37(1), we firstly refer the verdict of section 37(1) which reads as under: “37. General (1) any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

va)/43B. Now, coming to the issue of allowability u/s 37(1), we firstly refer the verdict of section 37(1) which reads as under: “37. General (1) any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

va)/43B. Now, coming to the issue of allowability u/s 37(1), we firstly refer the verdict of section 37(1) which reads as under: “37. General (1) any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

va)/43B. Now, coming to the issue of allowability u/s 37(1), we firstly refer the verdict of section 37(1) which reads as under: “37. General (1) any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

va)/43B. Now, coming to the issue of allowability u/s 37(1), we firstly refer the verdict of section 37(1) which reads as under: “37. General (1) any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

36,45,26,777/- on account of revaluation of forward contracts in FY 2014-15. Hence, the Ld. PCIT was not justified in holding that the order of the Ld. AO is “prejudicial to the interests of revenue”. Thus, considering that Ld. AO’s acceptance of the claim of mark to market loss

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

36) V.S.T. 563 decided on 09th September, 2010 wherein the court held that potato chips cannot come under the classification of processed vegetable under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The court further held that the entries under Schedule (B) of the goods exempted from tax and under Schedule (A) relates entries in the respective State Acts

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

36) V.S.T. 563 decided on 09th September, 2010 wherein the court held that potato chips cannot come under the classification of processed vegetable under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The court further held that the entries under Schedule (B) of the goods exempted from tax and under Schedule (A) relates entries in the respective State Acts

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

36) V.S.T. 563 decided on 09th September, 2010 wherein the court held that potato chips cannot come under the classification of processed vegetable under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The court further held that the entries under Schedule (B) of the goods exempted from tax and under Schedule (A) relates entries in the respective State Acts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

36) V.S.T. 563 decided on 09th September, 2010 wherein the court held that potato chips cannot come under the classification of processed vegetable under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The court further held that the entries under Schedule (B) of the goods exempted from tax and under Schedule (A) relates entries in the respective State Acts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

36) V.S.T. 563 decided on 09th September, 2010 wherein the court held that potato chips cannot come under the classification of processed vegetable under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The court further held that the entries under Schedule (B) of the goods exempted from tax and under Schedule (A) relates entries in the respective State Acts