SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

disallowance to be triggered. 19. In the considered view of the Court, this will be a truncated reading of Section 14 A and Rule 8D particularly when Rule 8D (1) uses the expression 'such previous year'. Further, it does not account for the concept of 'real income'. It does not note that under Section 5 of the Act, the question

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

disallowance to be triggered. 19. In the considered view of the Court, this will be a truncated reading of Section 14 A and Rule 8D particularly when Rule 8D (1) uses the expression 'such previous year'. Further, it does not account for the concept of 'real income'. It does not note that under Section 5 of the Act, the question

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

disallowance to be triggered. 19. In the considered view of the Court, this will be a truncated reading of Section 14 A and Rule 8D particularly when Rule 8D (1) uses the expression 'such previous year'. Further, it does not account for the concept of 'real income'. It does not note that under Section 5 of the Act, the question

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

disallowance to be triggered. 19. In the considered view of the Court, this will be a truncated reading of Section 14 A and Rule 8D particularly when Rule 8D (1) uses the expression 'such previous year'. Further, it does not account for the concept of 'real income'. It does not note that under Section 5 of the Act, the question

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. MARKET CREATORS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

115/- only, the assessing office was directed to restrict the disallowance to that extent only. 12. In the case, disallowance of Rs. 37,31,391/- u/s. 14A which included disallowance out of interest at Rs. 35,20,675/- and disallowance on account of administrative expenses being 0.5% of the average value of investment resulting into disallowance

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

SOPHOS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowed under Section 14A of the Act. The Assessee argued that dividend income could not be treated as 'exempt' as the income suffered tax under Section 115

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed while computing the book profit under the provisions of section 115 JB of the Act. However on perusal of the order

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

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed while computing the book profit under the provisions of section 115 JB of the Act. However on perusal of the order

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

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed while computing the book profit under the provisions of section 115 JB of the Act. However on perusal of the order

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed while computing the book profit under the provisions of section 115 JB of the Act. However on perusal of the order

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Abs Tower, Old Circle 1(1)(1), Padra Road, Baroda-390007 Baroda Pan : Aaacg 6725 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.12.2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta:

115 JB. f) In extending explanation to section 115JB to sub-section (2) & (3) of section 14A and by adding the amount disallowed

GOYAL & CO. (CONST.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD

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

115,45,31,645/- as on 31st March, 2013 whereas the investment in the alleged partnership firms stands at Rs. 9,90,24,937/-. Thus it is clear that the own fund of the assessee exceeds the investment. Therefore in our considered view there cannot be any disallowance of interest expenses. In this regard we place our reliance

GOYAL & CO. (CONST.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD

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

115,45,31,645/- as on 31st March, 2013 whereas the investment in the alleged partnership firms stands at Rs. 9,90,24,937/-. Thus it is clear that the own fund of the assessee exceeds the investment. Therefore in our considered view there cannot be any disallowance of interest expenses. In this regard we place our reliance

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

115 JB of the Act has also considered the impugned amount of disallowance made while calculating the income under the normal head of income. As such, the AO has also made disallowance of the impugned amount of Rs.9,87,19,946/- while calculating the book profit under section

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

115 JB of the Act has also considered the impugned amount of disallowance made while calculating the income under the normal head of income. As such, the AO has also made disallowance of the impugned amount of Rs.9,87,19,946/- while calculating the book profit under section

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

THE ACIT,GNR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115|B requires actual expenses rclatable to exempt income to be added to the book profits and not expenses which have been apportioned by some way or the other. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.2 The learned CTT(A) erred in holding that the expenses disallowed