SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG, KAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE., NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,, NAVASARI

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, , NAVSARI

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 36(1)(viia) of Rs.8.567 crores. Thus, 7 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 excess claimed of Rs.7.80 crores was disallowed and added back to the income of assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 36(1)(viia) of Rs.8.567 crores. Thus, 7 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 excess claimed of Rs.7.80 crores was disallowed and added back to the income of assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 36(1)(viia) of Rs.8.567 crores. Thus, 7 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 excess claimed of Rs.7.80 crores was disallowed and added back to the income of assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 36(1)(viia) of Rs.8.567 crores. Thus, 7 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 excess claimed of Rs.7.80 crores was disallowed and added back to the income of assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 36(1)(viia) of Rs.8.567 crores. Thus, 7 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 excess claimed of Rs.7.80 crores was disallowed and added back to the income of assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 36(1)(viia) of Rs.8.567 crores. Thus, 7 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 excess claimed of Rs.7.80 crores was disallowed and added back to the income of assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 36(1)(viia) of Rs.8.567 crores. Thus, 7 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 excess claimed of Rs.7.80 crores was disallowed and added back to the income of assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 36(1)(viia) of Rs.8.567 crores. Thus, 7 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 excess claimed of Rs.7.80 crores was disallowed and added back to the income of assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account

THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. GUJARAT JHM HOTELS LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Hotel Holiday In, Near Ambica Vs. Surat. Niketan, Athwalines, Surat- 395001. Pan : Aaacg 8562 E Appellant Respondednt C.O. No. 02/Srt/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 27/Srt/2017)(Ay: 2010-11) M/S Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd., D.C.I.T. Hotel Holiday In, Near Bharti Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Park, Ambikaniketan, Surat. Athwalines, Surat-395007. Pan : Aaacg 8562 E Appellant Respondednt

depreciation of earlier year is not NIL. The ld. CIT(A) also noted that after adjusting the losses of Rs. 5.953 crores of DCIT Vs M/s Gujarat JHM Hotels Ltd. windmill units 7 to 9 against the profit of hotel, profit was Rs. 6.292 crores and profit from windmill NO. 1 to 6 was Rs. 2.369 crore and the resultant