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 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs.94.25.132/-u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act. (15) The CIT(A) has erred in facts and law in deleting the foreign currency loss of Rs.29.22.90.000/- which were treated as speculation loss based on the findings in the assessment order. (16) The CITIA) has erred in facts and law in deleting the adjustment of Rs. 3.54,82.415/- made

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs.94.25.132/-u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act. (15) The CIT(A) has erred in facts and law in deleting the foreign currency loss of Rs.29.22.90.000/- which were treated as speculation loss based on the findings in the assessment order. (16) The CITIA) has erred in facts and law in deleting the adjustment of Rs. 3.54,82.415/- made

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance is only on the alleged finding that the appellant has not been able to prove the payments made to farmers/shepherds and not to traders or middleman. It is an admitted fact that assessee has made cash payment and further that nowhere the genuineness of the transaction, payment of purchase of livestock has been doubted

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance is only on the alleged finding that the appellant has not been able to prove the payments made to farmers/shepherds and not to traders or middleman. It is an admitted fact that assessee has made cash payment and further that nowhere the genuineness of the transaction, payment of purchase of livestock has been doubted

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PRIYAL INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.91/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Cir.3(1)(1) M/S. Priyal Internaional P. Ltd. Ahmedabad. 297/300, Phase-Ii, Gidc Vs. Vatva, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaecp 4640 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

disallowance u/3. 14A can be made out of interest expenditure." (iii) CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation (2013) 352ITR 583 (Gui-HC) "When the assessee did not invest borrowed fund for earning interest free income, provision of Section 14A of the Act cannot be applied for taxing interest on such borrowed funds." (iv) CIT vs. Deepak Mittal (2013) 361 ITR 131

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Aditya Medisales Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 402, 4Th Floor, R.K. Centre Vs Vadodara. Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabca 9317 J Assessment Year :2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Aditya Medisales Ltd. Vadodara. Vs 402, 4Th Floor, R.K. Centre Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabca 9317 J

131/- and the book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act 1961 was shown at Rs.12,78,45,729/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under sections 143[2] and 142[1] were issued from time to time and the assessment was completed under section 143[3] on 28-12-2016 determining

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Aditya Medisales Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 402, 4Th Floor, R.K. Centre Vs Vadodara. Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabca 9317 J Assessment Year :2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Aditya Medisales Ltd. Vadodara. Vs 402, 4Th Floor, R.K. Centre Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabca 9317 J

131/- and the book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act 1961 was shown at Rs.12,78,45,729/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under sections 143[2] and 142[1] were issued from time to time and the assessment was completed under section 143[3] on 28-12-2016 determining

SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

131 (Ker.). Both these judgments, though rendered in the context of The DCIT, Cent.Cir.Vs.Shaligram Infra Projects LLP (6 Appeals) 12 section 153A, are distinguishable on facts and context. In Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra), the Delhi High Court held that once section 153A is triggered pursuant to a search, the Assessing Officer has the power to assess or reassess the total

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

section 32 were therefore not satisfied. 131. As far as this grievance of the Assessing Officer is concerned, there is no dispute that the car was not legally owned by the assessee company but by the director, even though the payment for acquisition o£ this car was made by the assessee company and the car is used by the company

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b), and the order\nof the AO deserved to be restored.\n7.\nThe learned Authorised Representative(AR) supported the order of the\nCIT(A) and placed reliance on his detailed findings. It was pointed out that\nthe Assessing Officer had made the impugned additions solely on the basis\nof certain loose papers being page nos.58

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

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 131 to\nverify the genuineness of the transactions, summarily disallowed the entire\nclaim merely on the basis of suspicion

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

disallowances. 11.1 From the above, it appears that the issue on hand is squarely covered by the order of the coordinate bench in the own case of the appellant. Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the decision of Tribunal as discussed above has been set aside/ stayed or overruled

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

disallowances. 11.1 From the above, it appears that the issue on hand is squarely covered by the order of the coordinate bench in the own case of the appellant. Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the decision of Tribunal as discussed above has been set aside/ stayed or overruled

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowed the expenses related to these purchases, questioning their authenticity and alleging that the transactions lacked the necessary supporting evidence. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, backed by proper documentation, and were necessary for its business operations. The assessee also provided ‘account payee cheques’ and other records as evidence of these transactions to counter the Revenue's claims

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowed the expenses related to these purchases, questioning their authenticity and alleging that the transactions lacked the necessary supporting evidence. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, backed by proper documentation, and were necessary for its business operations. The assessee also provided ‘account payee cheques’ and other records as evidence of these transactions to counter the Revenue's claims

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowed the expenses related to these purchases, questioning their authenticity and alleging that the transactions lacked the necessary supporting evidence. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, backed by proper documentation, and were necessary for its business operations. The assessee also provided ‘account payee cheques’ and other records as evidence of these transactions to counter the Revenue's claims