DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ANIL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 402/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 September 2025AY 2013-14Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was correctly restricted to the extent of actual exempt income, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Similarly, the deduction under Section 80JJA was also confirmed as allowed in prior years on identical facts.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) concerning Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appeals relate to the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A and the disallowance of deduction under Section 80JJA.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A and the deduction under Section 80JJA were correctly treated by the CIT(A) based on prior assessments and tribunal orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 8D(2)(ii),Section 8D(2)(iii),Section 80JJA,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Hearing: 12.08.2025Pronounced: 17.09.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & 403/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner Anil Limited, Vs. of Income Tax, Anil Starch Premises, Circle-1(1)(1), Anil Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380025 [PAN :AABCA3154 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR Respondent by: None Date of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.09.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the separate orders of even dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) relating to the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15.

2.

As common issues are involved in both the years under consideration, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the grounds raised

in A.Y. 2013-14, which shall apply mutatis mutandis to A.Y. 2014-15. for A.Y 2013-14 Ground No. 1: Disallowance under Section 14A

3. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the disallowance u/s 14A, as computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,06,06,790/-, included Rs. 98,94,415/- under Rule ITA Nos. 402-403/Ahd/2025 DCIT Vs Anil Limited Asst. Years : 2013-14- to 2014-15 - 2– 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 7,12,375/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii). However, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Ltd. [(2014) 372 ITR 97 (Guj)] and the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 2,84,678/-, being the actual exempt income earned. Since the matter stands adjudicated in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11, the Co- ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Ahmedabad, in ITA No. 2174/Ahd/2016 vide order dated 19.05.2023, wherein the Tribunal upheld the restriction of disallowance to the extent of actual exempt income and since the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is based on the order of the Tribunal, we decline to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

This ground of appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed.

Ground No. 2: Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80JJA

4.

The Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80JJA amounting to Rs. 23,54,30,842/- on the ground that the assessee failed to substantiate the actual receipt and processing of bio-degradable waste. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim in full, noting that in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010- 11, 2011-12, and 2012-13, the claim was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A), which was further confirmed by the ITAT, Ahmedabad in & 2175/Ahd/2016 and ITA No. 858/Ahd/2017 vide order dated 19.05.2023. It is not in dispute that in assessee’s own case for earlier years, on identical facts, the deduction u/s 80JJA was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A), and such decisions were upheld by the ITAT. Since no distinguishing facts have been brought to our notice for the year under consideration, we find no reason to deviate from the view taken by Ld. CIT(A).

Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed.

ITA Nos. 402-403/Ahd/2025 DCIT Vs Anil Limited Asst. Years : 2013-14- to 2014-15 - 3– for A.Y. 2014-15

5.

Since the facts and issues in A.Y. 2014-15 are identical to those discussed above in A.Y. 2013-14, our findings and conclusions rendered hereinabove shall apply mutatis mutandis to A.Y. 2014-15 as well.

6.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →