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)

section 14 has been amended so as to include a non obstante clause to provide that no direction shall be allowed in relation to exempt income, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Act. Thus, the earlier judgments holding that if there is no exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made are overruled. It is also held that this

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)

section 14 has been amended so as to include a non obstante clause to provide that no direction shall be allowed in relation to exempt income, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Act. Thus, the earlier judgments holding that if there is no exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made are overruled. It is also held that this

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

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

149(1)(b) of the Act would be satisfied if the cumulative value of the expenditure exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs, provided that the same is related to an event or occasion." 20. Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the decision of this court in L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited (supra). The petition

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

149(1)(b) of the Act would be satisfied if the\ncumulative value of the expenditure exceeds Rs.50 lakhs, provided\nthat the same is related to an event or occasion.\n20. Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the\ndecision of this court in L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private\nLimited (supra). The petition

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the amount of tax exempt income. In the present year, admittedly the dividend income is only Rs1,33,91,149

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the amount of tax exempt income. In the present year, admittedly the dividend income is only Rs1,33,91,149

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

VISHAL BALVANTRAI AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.226/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 V/S. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbpa 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D reflects a mere difference of opinion rather than pointing to any procedural or legal error and the AO’s decision not to expand the scrutiny was correct and in line with the scope of limited scrutiny assessments. 5. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of PCIT

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

149/- which comprised disallowance of Rs.2,65,26,656/- out of general administrative expenses and Rs.2,19,77,493/- on account of interest expenses. The AO has worked out this disallowance by following formulae provided in Rule 8D. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed methodology adopted

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

149/- which comprised disallowance of Rs.2,65,26,656/- out of general administrative expenses and Rs.2,19,77,493/- on account of interest expenses. The AO has worked out this disallowance by following formulae provided in Rule 8D. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed methodology adopted

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

149/- which comprised disallowance of Rs.2,65,26,656/- out of general administrative expenses and Rs.2,19,77,493/- on account of interest expenses. The AO has worked out this disallowance by following formulae provided in Rule 8D. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed methodology adopted

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

149/- which comprised disallowance of Rs.2,65,26,656/- out of general administrative expenses and Rs.2,19,77,493/- on account of interest expenses. The AO has worked out this disallowance by following formulae provided in Rule 8D. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed methodology adopted

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

149/- which comprised disallowance of Rs.2,65,26,656/- out of general administrative expenses and Rs.2,19,77,493/- on account of interest expenses. The AO has worked out this disallowance by following formulae provided in Rule 8D. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed methodology adopted

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

149/- which comprised disallowance of Rs.2,65,26,656/- out of general administrative expenses and Rs.2,19,77,493/- on account of interest expenses. The AO has worked out this disallowance by following formulae provided in Rule 8D. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed methodology adopted

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

149/- which comprised disallowance of Rs.2,65,26,656/- out of general administrative expenses and Rs.2,19,77,493/- on account of interest expenses. The AO has worked out this disallowance by following formulae provided in Rule 8D. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed methodology adopted

SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, ~ belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, or any information contained therein, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books