JAI PRAKASH CHOUDHARY,VADODARA vs. THE ADIT CPC, BENGLURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Again, recently Pune ITAT in the case of Cemetile Industries v. ITO [2022] 145 taxmann.com 209 (Pune-Trib.) held that where assessee-employer deposited amount of employees contribution towards employees' provident fund and employees' state insurance corporation beyond due date stipulated in respective Acts, disallowance

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt. It was held that the possibility of a personal or\nnon-business element in such expenditure could not be ruled out.\nConsequently, 10% of the aggregate amount of site and site development\nexpenses, i.e., Rs. 13,47,839/-, was disallowed and added to the total

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

145 and 146/AHD/2023 Assessment Year :2012-13, 2017-18 and 2018-19 The Mehsana Urban Co-op. Vs. ACIT, Mehsana Circle Bank Ltd. Mehsana. Urban Bank Road Mal Godown Road Mehasana PAN : AAAAT 2500 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/(Respondent) थ" Assessee by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

145 and 146/AHD/2023 Assessment Year :2012-13, 2017-18 and 2018-19 The Mehsana Urban Co-op. Vs. ACIT, Mehsana Circle Bank Ltd. Mehsana. Urban Bank Road Mal Godown Road Mehasana PAN : AAAAT 2500 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/(Respondent) थ" Assessee by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

145 and 146/AHD/2023 Assessment Year :2012-13, 2017-18 and 2018-19 The Mehsana Urban Co-op. Vs. ACIT, Mehsana Circle Bank Ltd. Mehsana. Urban Bank Road Mal Godown Road Mehasana PAN : AAAAT 2500 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/(Respondent) थ" Assessee by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt. It was held that the possibility of a personal or\nnon-business element in such expenditure could not be ruled out.\nConsequently, 10% of the aggregate amount of site and site development\nexpenses, i.e., Rs.13,47,839/-, was disallowed and added to the total\nincome

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt. It was held that the possibility of a personal or\nnon-business element in such expenditure could not be ruled out.\nConsequently, 10% of the aggregate amount of site and site development\nexpenses, i.e., Rs.13,47,839/-, was disallowed and added to the total\nincome

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

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

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.(A SUCCESSOR OF LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (EARLIER ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HOSUR), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Again, recently Pune ITAT in the case of Cemetile Industries v. ITO [2022] 145 taxmann.com 209/[2023] 198 ITD 322 (Pune - Trib.) held that where assessee-employer deposited amount of employees contribution towards employees' provident fund and employees' state insurance corporation beyond due date stipulated in respective Acts, disallowance

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.( ERSTWHILE LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Again, recently Pune ITAT in the case of Cemetile Industries v. ITO [2022] 145 taxmann.com 209/[2023] 198 ITD 322 (Pune - Trib.) held that where assessee-employer deposited amount of employees contribution towards employees' provident fund and employees' state insurance corporation beyond due date stipulated in respective Acts, disallowance

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE (JAO-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE1(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Again, recently Pune ITAT in the case of Cemetile Industries v. ITO [2022] 145 taxmann.com 209/[2023] 198 ITD 322 (Pune - Trib.) held that where assessee-employer deposited amount of employees contribution towards employees' provident fund and employees' state insurance corporation beyond due date stipulated in respective Acts, disallowance

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section