THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

charitable trust involved in microfinance lending, which transferred its Micro Finance Division (MFD) to the assessee and Indian Foundation for Inclusive Growth (IFIG) - A trust that is the holding entity of Ananya Finance and was funded by FWWB. The assessee entered into a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) with FWWB on April 26, 2010, to acquire its Micro Finance Division

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

charitable trust involved in microfinance lending, which transferred its Micro Finance Division (MFD) to the assessee and Indian Foundation for Inclusive Growth (IFIG) - A trust that is the holding entity of Ananya Finance and was funded by FWWB. The assessee entered into a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) with FWWB on April 26, 2010, to acquire its Micro Finance Division

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

charitable trust involved in microfinance lending, which transferred its Micro Finance Division (MFD) to the assessee and Indian Foundation for Inclusive Growth (IFIG) - A trust that is the holding entity of Ananya Finance and was funded by FWWB. The assessee entered into a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) with FWWB on April 26, 2010, to acquire its Micro Finance Division

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14A adjustment to section 115JB. Regarding the issue of allocation of employee benefit expenses, the CIT(A) examined the assessee’s division-based allocation methodology in detail. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had established that each division had separate identifiable workforce and separate brands, that division-wise sales were supported by auditor certificates, and that the allocation

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14A adjustment to section 115JB. Regarding the issue of allocation of employee benefit expenses, the CIT(A) examined the assessee’s division-based allocation methodology in detail. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had established that each division had separate identifiable workforce and separate brands, that division-wise sales were supported by auditor certificates, and that the allocation

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14A adjustment to section 115JB. Regarding the issue of allocation of employee benefit expenses, the CIT(A) examined the assessee’s division-based allocation methodology in detail. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had established that each division had separate identifiable workforce and separate brands, that division-wise sales were supported by auditor certificates, and that the allocation

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14A adjustment to section 115JB. Regarding the issue of allocation of employee benefit expenses, the CIT(A) examined the assessee’s division-based allocation methodology in detail. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had established that each division had separate identifiable workforce and separate brands, that division-wise sales were supported by auditor certificates, and that the allocation

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14A adjustment to section 115JB. Regarding the issue of allocation of employee benefit expenses, the CIT(A) examined the assessee’s division-based allocation methodology in detail. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had established that each division had separate identifiable workforce and separate brands, that division-wise sales were supported by auditor certificates, and that the allocation

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14A adjustment to section 115JB. Regarding the issue of allocation of employee benefit expenses, the CIT(A) examined the assessee’s division-based allocation methodology in detail. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had established that each division had separate identifiable workforce and separate brands, that division-wise sales were supported by auditor certificates, and that the allocation

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

14A adjustment to section 115JB.\nRegarding the issue of allocation of employee benefit expenses, the CIT(A)\nexamined the assessee's division-based allocation methodology in detail. The\nCIT(A) noted that the assessee had established that each division had separate\nidentifiable workforce and separate brands, that division-wise sales were\nsupported by auditor certificates, and that the allocation

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

14A adjustment to section 115JB.\nRegarding the issue of allocation of employee benefit expenses, the CIT(A)\nexamined the assessee's division-based allocation methodology in detail. The\nCIT(A) noted that the assessee had established that each division had separate\nidentifiable workforce and separate brands, that division-wise sales were\nsupported by auditor certificates, and that the allocation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

14A of the Act, as the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed 8. The second ground pertains to disallowance of Rs.14,01,31,001/- under Section 80G of the Act in respect of the amounts

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI LOGISTICS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2020-21

14A of the Act, as the assessee did not earn any exempt income DCIT Vs Adani Logistics Ltd., AY- 2020-21 5 during the year. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. The second ground pertains to disallowance of Rs.29

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Mahavir Prasadassessment Year : 2011-12 Ananya Finance For Inclusive The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Growth P Ltd. Ambawadi 401, Shaan, Op: M.J. Library Ahmedabad 380015. Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aahca 8023 D

charitable Trust u/s 12A of the Act, claiming exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Micro Finance Division (MFD) of FWWB was started three decades back. Indian Foundation For Inclusive Growth (IFIG) is a trust registered under the Documents and Registration Act,1908 ,and was formed on 13-03-2009, out of corpus funds

SHALBY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2020-21

section 80G of the Act. A search action u/s. 132 of the Act, was conducted on political parties and charitable organisation groups in March 2021 and AISECT was also covered in the search action. It was found that this assessee was engaged in bogus donation scheme. The donations received through banking channels used to be returned back after charging

MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 187 Gide Estate Vadodara. Waghodia Dist. Vadodara-391 760 Gujarat. Pan: Aaacg 8588 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Assessee By : Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) and thereby making disallowance of Rs. 53,36,814. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO and making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the facts on record in proper perspective

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

14A at 1% of the average value of opening and closing balance of investments, resulting in a disallowance of Rs.3,32,13,180/-. Consequently, the returned income of Rs.1,90,01,26,570/- was enhanced by Rs.3,32,13,180/- and the total income was assessed at Rs.1,93,33,39,750/- under section

THE ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE CHURCH OF NORTH INDIA ,GUJARAT DIOCESE,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the revenue is against the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 6982002/- on account of assessment donation and Rs. 11 lacs on account of foreign currency donation made by the assessing officer. I.T.A