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, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have

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, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have

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, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHOVANDAS METAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 115J, depreciation should have been calculated in terms of the Companies Act, 1956 and Schedule XIV thereof. Accordingly, he disallowed

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have

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:

disallowance, and withExplanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that "the Assessing Officer does not have

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

disallowance, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs. 89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the 1TAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that "the Assessing Officer does

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

disallowance, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs. 89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the 1TAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that "the Assessing Officer does

KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHUVAN METAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 115J, depreciation should have been calculated in terms of the Companies Act, 1956 and Schedule XIV thereof. Accordingly, he disallowed

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. HARSHA ENGINEERS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1853/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit,Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Harsha Engineers Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Sarkhej Bhavla Road Changodar, Ahmedabad 382 213 Pan : Aaaach 4828 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Tushar H. Hemani, Ar

disallowance, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs. 89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the 1TAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that "the Assessing Officer does

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 115J, depreciation should have been calculated in terms of the Companies Act, 1956 and Schedule XIV thereof. Accordingly, he disallowed

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 115J, depreciation should have been calculated in terms of the Companies Act, 1956 and Schedule XIV thereof. Accordingly, he disallowed

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

disallowance. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the material available on record. This issue is been settled by the judgement of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of India cements Ltd wearing it is held that loan is not an asset or a advantage of enduring nature and expenditure incurred in connection with obtaining loan

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

disallowance. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the material available on record. This issue is been settled by the judgement of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of India cements Ltd wearing it is held that loan is not an asset or a advantage of enduring nature and expenditure incurred in connection with obtaining loan

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

disallowance. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the material available on record. This issue is been settled by the judgement of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of India cements Ltd wearing it is held that loan is not an asset or a advantage of enduring nature and expenditure incurred in connection with obtaining loan

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IE of the Act in Sikkim Unit on other incomes. 60. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed deduction of profit derived from Sikkim Unit under section 80-IE of the Act. As per the AO, there were certain incomes considered by the assessee eligible for deduction under section

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

disallowed and added to MAT income as well. The adjustment to the book profit is required to be made in accordance with the provision of section 115JB of the Act and the CSR expense being not covered in the Explanation to the said section, couldn’t have been added back. It has been held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court