GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 2(24)(x) of the Act. However, the assessee has itself disallowed only Rs 42,14,588/- in its computation. Thus the remaining amount Rs 2,59,71,570/- should have been disallowed by the AO. (ii) It is seen that in clause 34(a) of the audit report form 3CD the auditors have reported that the assessee

ACIT, KOTA vs. SHIV AGREVO LTD., BARAN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Sections 801C(8)(ix) and 801E(7)(iii)[as held in case of Nahar Poly Films Ltd. Vs. CIT, Ludhiana 201 Taxman 304 (P&H)]. The word expansion is not different from extension of business and therefore the interest expenditure, on the utilization of borrowed funds for the 10 ACIT, Kota vs. M/s Shiv Agrevo Ltd., Baran acquisition

SHRI KARAN RAWAT,NAINITAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

disallowance made by ld. AO amounting to Rs. 40,64,288/- U/s 80IC. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by allowing the said deduction u/ 801C as claimed by the assessee.” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that