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-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

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

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,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 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

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

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

disallowed in the case of the assessee in the preceding years, as noted by the AO i.e. Asst. Year 2013-14 to 2015-16. To this, the ld. 19 Axis Bank Limited Vs. ACIT AY : 2018-19 Counsel pointed out that the matter had been restored back to the AO for adjudication afresh by the ITAT. 34. In view

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

112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the difference between the sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition represents the real income chargeable under the special provision governing long-term capital gains and that, in absence of any express prohibition in section 115JB, the assessee cannot be denied this statutory benefit

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

112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the difference between the sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition represents the real income chargeable under the special provision governing long-term capital gains and that, in absence of any express prohibition in section 115JB, the assessee cannot be denied this statutory benefit

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

112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the difference between the sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition represents the real income chargeable under the special provision governing long-term capital gains and that, in absence of any express prohibition in section 115JB, the assessee cannot be denied this statutory benefit

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

112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the difference between the sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition represents the real income chargeable under the special provision governing long-term capital gains and that, in absence of any express prohibition in section 115JB, the assessee cannot be denied this statutory benefit

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

112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the difference between the sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition represents the real income chargeable under the special provision governing long-term capital gains and that, in absence of any express prohibition in section 115JB, the assessee cannot be denied this statutory benefit

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

112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the difference between the sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition represents the real income chargeable under the special provision governing long-term capital gains and that, in absence of any express prohibition in section 115JB, the assessee cannot be denied this statutory benefit