THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

disallowance made by AO amounting to Rs.1,89,56,798/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for contravening the provision of section 195 of the IT Act by assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is, therefore

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

disallowance made by AO amounting to Rs.1,89,56,798/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for contravening the provision of section 195 of the IT Act by assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is, therefore

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

disallowance made by AO amounting to Rs.1,89,56,798/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for contravening the provision of section 195 of the IT Act by assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is, therefore

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

disallowance made by AO amounting to Rs.1,89,56,798/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for contravening the provision of section 195 of the IT Act by assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is, therefore

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

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with sections 198 and 309 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment year 1979-80 - Whether when vehicles belonging to an assessee-company are used by its directors, for personal or other purposes, it would be wrong to hold that vehicles are personally used by company, because

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1) VADODARA, VADODARA vs. M/S. INOX WIND ENERGY LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.654/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Inox Wind Energy Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Limited, V/S. Circle-1(1)(1), Abs Tower S. No.1837 & Vadodara. 1834, Op Road, Vadodara-390007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafc14628K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 27.01.2025, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], On 18.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. Dcit Vs. Inox Wind Energy Limited Assessment Year 2015-16

disallowance under section 14A is permissible. The AR also relied upon the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2022 in section 14A, submitting that the amendment is prospective and cannot be applied to the year under consideration. 8. On the issue of depreciation of Rs. 36.24 lakhs, the AR submitted that the assessee had purchased the wind energy division

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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

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 were provided to entire AO and appellant had opted to suo moto disallowance the entitle expenditure of that division viz Rs. 1,56,62,600 U/s. 14A while

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

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 were provided to entire AO and appellant had opted to suo moto disallowance the entitle expenditure of that division viz Rs. 1,56,62,600 U/s. 14A while

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

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 were provided to entire AO and appellant had opted to suo moto disallowance the entitle expenditure of that division viz Rs. 1,56,62,600 U/s. 14A while