← All Phrases

“strategic investment”

DisallowancesSection 14ASection 14A426 judgments

The decision most relied on for strategic investment is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640), cited in 1,596 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on strategic investment

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT
65 SOT 86 · 2014 · ITAT
74
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) does not apply to long-term investments, including those in subsidiary/group concerns or strategic investments, and such investments should be excluded from the calculation.

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax
34 ITR 368 · 1958 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Investments made by a holding company in its subsidiary can be considered a business activity, allowing related business expenditures to be deducted and not disallowed.

Southern Petro Chemical Industries v. DCIT
3 SOT 157 · 2005 · ITAT
34
citing judgments

Proportionate management expenses are deductible when computing exempt dividend income, as investment decisions are strategic and involve top management.

Gareware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT
46 Taxmann.com 18 · 2014 · ITAT
22
citing judgments

Strategic investments in wholly-owned subsidiaries are to be excluded when calculating the disallowance under Section 14A, which pertains to expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. This exclusion applies even when these investments are made for holding a controlling stake rather than for earning dividends.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Enrich Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd.
148 Taxmann.com 26 · 2023 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court confirms that when shares are issued at a premium to investors, the valuation of such shares must be assessed based on established methods like the NAV or DCF method, and the revenue cannot arbitrarily determine the fair market value.

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v. JCIT
36 SOT 348 · 2010 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Investments on which no exempt income was received during the year, and investments in subsidiaries considered strategic, are excluded from average investment calculations for determining disallowance of interest expenses.

366 ITR 505 (Bom), CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power
239 ITR 735 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Investments made by an assessee are presumed to be out of interest-free funds, and no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no dividend income is received from such strategic investments.

Judgments citing strategic investment

Zhilmil Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 87/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

some instrument which could have yielded return/ profit in the revenue projection made at the time of issuance of shares, without understanding that strategic investments and risks are undertaken for appreciation of capital and larger returns and not simply dividend and interest. Any businessman or entrepreneur, visualise the business based

Shanta Blankets Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 84/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

some instrument which could have yielded return/ profit in the revenue projection made at the time of issuance of shares, without understanding that strategic investments and risks are undertaken for appreciation of capital and larger returns and not simply dividend and interest. Any businessman or entrepreneur, visualise the business based

Il&Fs Maritime Infrastructure Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3558/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Hetal Vora &For Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 14A

investments are convertible into equity shares. The assessing officer was of the view that these investment were in the nature of long term strategic investment to earn exempt income, therefore, these were covered in the category of investment capable of earning exempt income as per Rule

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 971/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: Piyush Chhajed
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

that case were that the Assessee viz. Mis Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd had invested certain amounts in Reliance Gas Ltd. and Reliance Strategic Investments Ltd. It was the case of the Assessee that they themselves were in the business of generation of power and they had eamed regular business ... income therefrom The investments made by the Assessee in Mis Reliance Gas Ltd And M/s Reliance Strategic Investments Ltd were done out of their own funds and were in the regular course of business and therefore no part of the interest could be disallowed. It was also pointed out that

M/S Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 7900/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 32(1), 308, Level 3, Ceejay Ground Floor, Aayakar House, F Block Shiv Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 020 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 308, Level 3, Ceejay Air India Building, House, F Block Shiv Nariman Point, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 021 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(4) 308, Level 3, Ceejay R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, House, F Block Shiv Sagar Air India Building, Estate, Dr. A.B. Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai -400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: Piyush Chhajed
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

that case were that the Assessee viz. Mis Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd had invested certain amounts in Reliance Gas Ltd. and Reliance Strategic Investments Ltd. It was the case of the Assessee that they themselves were in the business of generation of power and they had eamed regular business ... income therefrom The investments made by the Assessee in Mis Reliance Gas Ltd And M/s Reliance Strategic Investments Ltd were done out of their own funds and were in the regular course of business and therefore no part of the interest could be disallowed. It was also pointed out that

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 3952/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey&

For Respondent: Piyush Chhajed
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

that case were that the Assessee viz. Mis Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd had invested certain amounts in Reliance Gas Ltd. and Reliance Strategic Investments Ltd. It was the case of the Assessee that they themselves were in the business of generation of power and they had eamed regular business ... income therefrom The investments made by the Assessee in Mis Reliance Gas Ltd And M/s Reliance Strategic Investments Ltd were done out of their own funds and were in the regular course of business and therefore no part of the interest could be disallowed. It was also pointed out that

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House 6A, Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400 055 Pan – Aaaca3622K Appellant Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai V/S

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5363/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us.

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14A

ASIAN PAINTS LTD. ITA NO.5363/MUM./2017 ITA NO.5934/MUM./2017 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55

Jbm Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5835/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 14A

should not be made, the submissions of the assessee was that the investments made in subsidiaries and joint ventures are in the nature of strategic investments and not with an intendment to earn exempt income. On a perusal of assessment order, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer ... explanation is not acceptable and disallowance has to be made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. It is now fairly well settled that strategic investment in group entities cannot escape the rigours of section 14A read with Rule 8D. Furthermore, it is not a case where the assessee

Jbm Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5834/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 14A

should not be made, the submissions of the assessee was that the investments made in subsidiaries and joint ventures are in the nature of strategic investments and not with an intendment to earn exempt income. On a perusal of assessment order, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer ... explanation is not acceptable and disallowance has to be made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. It is now fairly well settled that strategic investment in group entities cannot escape the rigours of section 14A read with Rule 8D. Furthermore, it is not a case where the assessee

DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi vs. Jbm Auto Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5021/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: learned first appellate authority. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned first appellate authority granted partial relief to the assessee by deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.4,23,24,958/- made under Rule 8D(2)(ii). However, she upheld the disallowance of Rs.35,66,390/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii).

Section 14A

should not be made, the submissions of the assessee was that the investments made in subsidiaries and joint ventures are in the nature of strategic investments and not with an intendment to earn exempt income. On a perusal of assessment order, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer ... explanation is not acceptable and disallowance has to be made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. It is now fairly well settled that strategic investment in group entities cannot escape the rigours of section 14A read with Rule 8D. Furthermore, it is not a case where the assessee

DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi vs. Jbm Auto Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5020/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: learned first appellate authority. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned first appellate authority granted partial relief to the assessee by deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.4,23,24,958/- made under Rule 8D(2)(ii). However, she upheld the disallowance of Rs.35,66,390/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii).

Section 14A

should not be made, the submissions of the assessee was that the investments made in subsidiaries and joint ventures are in the nature of strategic investments and not with an intendment to earn exempt income. On a perusal of assessment order, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer ... explanation is not acceptable and disallowance has to be made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. It is now fairly well settled that strategic investment in group entities cannot escape the rigours of section 14A read with Rule 8D. Furthermore, it is not a case where the assessee

Ufo Moviez India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT-27, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1730/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Ufo Moviez India Limited, Vs Addl.Cit-27, Office No.12, 3Rd Floor, C. R. Building, Valuable Techno Park, Plot New Delhi. No.53/1, Road No.07, Marol Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai-4000093. Pan-Aabcv8900E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm By Way Of This Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, New Delhi Dated 11.12.2017 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

learned AO had erred in not appreciating the fact that most of the Appellant's investments were in its subsidiaries/ group companies (strategic investments) and the said investments were made with a view to enhance its business and not to earn exempt dividend income; 5.2. the learned AO had erred

Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Payers Tax Unit, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1067/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George K. George & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37

fact that income generated is out of the investment in a Joint Venture and Subsidiaries of the entity which is in the form of strategic investment. viii. The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the Appellant has undertaken investments with their own funds and no amount ... sale of securities. It was only the idle funds, which were invested in two Subsidiaries and two associate companies in the form of strategic investment. The investment in question was made in previous years, and no additional investment was undertaken in the current year. The Assessee possessed substantial share capital

Goyal & Co. (Construction) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Now the Dcitcircle-2(1) (1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 307/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 306 & 307/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2020-21) Goyal & Co. Dcit बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, Commerce House Iv, Beside Reliance Petrol Pump, 100Ft. Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg5459R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/11/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 05/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 07.03.2023 & 09.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 12.12.2019 & 29.03.2022 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad & Acit, Central Circle 1(2), Ahmedabad, Respectively; Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2020-21. Ita Nos. 306 & 307/Ahd/2023 (Goyal & Co. (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit) A.Y.– 2017-18 & 2020-21 - 2 - 2. Since Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Relate To Similar Issue, These Are Heard Analogously & Are Being Disposed Of By A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Take Ita No.306/Ahd/2023 For A.Y. 2017-18 As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah & Shri DhrunalFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

appellant’s main business activity is construction and development of various projects. It made investments in partnership firm which are strategic investments and not for earning any exempt income. The appellant has identified specific expenditure pertaining to those investments which had earned exempt income and made disallowance of Rs.4

Goyal & Co. (Construction) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT Circle-2(1) (1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 306 & 307/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2020-21) Goyal & Co. Dcit बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, Commerce House Iv, Beside Reliance Petrol Pump, 100Ft. Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg5459R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/11/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 05/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 07.03.2023 & 09.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 12.12.2019 & 29.03.2022 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad & Acit, Central Circle 1(2), Ahmedabad, Respectively; Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2020-21. Ita Nos. 306 & 307/Ahd/2023 (Goyal & Co. (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit) A.Y.– 2017-18 & 2020-21 - 2 - 2. Since Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Relate To Similar Issue, These Are Heard Analogously & Are Being Disposed Of By A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Take Ita No.306/Ahd/2023 For A.Y. 2017-18 As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah & Shri DhrunalFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

appellant’s main business activity is construction and development of various projects. It made investments in partnership firm which are strategic investments and not for earning any exempt income. The appellant has identified specific expenditure pertaining to those investments which had earned exempt income and made disallowance of Rs.4

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1) (1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1646/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1) (1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1645/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER