SHRI ALTAFHUSEN MAHEMUDUL HASAN SIDDIKI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

depreciation on such vehicle. ITA Nos.577/Ahd/2012 & ITANo.969/Ahd/2015 Altafhusen M. Siddiki For AY 2008-09 & 2010-11 4 5. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.19,515/- being 10% of telephone expenses as personal use. 6. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

194A(3) of the Act does not apply in the case of the assessee, Hence, the case of the assessee is clearly covered under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Therefore, interest expenses amounting to Rs. 97,716/- on which TDS has not been deducted is disallowed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ( SINCE MERGED WITH ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3) of the Act. 7.1. Similarly, we also note that there was an addition amounting to Rs. 1,18,73,028/- under the block of data processing equipments. The learned CIT (A) has given very clear-cut finding that all the addition of the items in the block represents the computers and other connected devices. Accordingly the learned

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

SAMIR SYNTHETICS MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Him.

3,78,52,532/- and secured loan and unsecured loan was to the amount of Rs. 77,29,181/- and total investments was reflected at Rs. 1,12,44,492/-. No other information i.e. break-up of investment or schedules of the balance sheet were submitted to substantiate that no expenses were incurred towards earning exempt income. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MANISH RAICHAND SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

depreciation and RTO tax & insurance expenses of Rs. 23,20,000/- and 40(a)(ia) disallowance on interest expense of Rs. 14,95,961/- paid to NBFCs without making deduction as required u/s. 194A of the Act. Thus, the income of the assessee is determined as Rs. 1,32,59,620/-. 3. Aggrieved against the rectification order, the assessee filed