ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

disallowable sum. A breakdown of the allocation across expenditure heads was provided and it included the following items: Amount Sr. Description No. (Rs.) Sitting fees to members of Investment 56,000 1 Committee 2 Sitting fees of Board of Directors 36,800 Salary Cost – various departments 3 7,04,931 (proportionate) 4 Conveyance and Fuel 3

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

153 of the IT. Act, the Assessment Order, passed in pursuance to the Order of the Hon'ble ITAT u/s. 254 of the IT. Act, was required to be passed by 31/12/2018, being the expiry of nine months from the end of FY 2017-18 during which the Appellate Order of the ITAT was received. 2. That without prejudice

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs.35,11,35,800/- u/s.14A r.w.r 8D without appreciating that the appellant has more its own interest funds which are far in excess of investment made. 4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs.35,11,35,800/- u/s.14A r.w.r 8D without appreciating that the appellant has more its own interest funds which are far in excess of investment made. 4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs.35,11,35,800/- u/s.14A r.w.r 8D without appreciating that the appellant has more its own interest funds which are far in excess of investment made. 4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs.35,11,35,800/- u/s.14A r.w.r 8D without appreciating that the appellant has more its own interest funds which are far in excess of investment made. 4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive

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

TEKNI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3. The A.O. as well as learned CIT(A) has erred on facts while not considering that in the intimation u/s. 143(1) under which section the disallowance has been made in the intimation and the amount tallies with the disallowance made by the appellant company of Rs.58,153

SHRI JITENDRA P.VAGHELA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(3), AHMEDABAD

disallowing expenditure on estimated basis i.e. 5% of the total expenses, it is not found justified for the reason that the additions were made on estimated basis and the AO did not prove conclusively that the appellant is liable for imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, penalty levied upon Rs.2.16,420/- are deleted. This ground

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

3) read with section 153A of the Act which was subject matter of appeal before the ld.CIT(A). After verifying the details, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made by the AO on the ground that no seized material was found during the course of search relating to the assessee. This issue is no more res integra

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

3) read with section 153A of the Act which was subject matter of appeal before the ld.CIT(A). After verifying the details, the ld.CIT(A) deleted additions made by the AO on the ground that no seized material was found during the course of search relating to the assessee. This issue is no more res integra

GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms.Madhumita Roy"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Pcit-I Corporation Ltd. Vadodra Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Race Course Circle, Baroda. Pan : Aabcg 4029 R "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Deputy Corporation Ltd. Commissioner Of Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Income Tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda. 1(1)(1), Vadodra Pan : Aabcg 4029 R Baroda.

153(3) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. We shall first adjudicate the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1119/Ahd /2015 challenging the order of the ld. Pr.CIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 3. The grievances of the assessee

GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPN.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-1, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms.Madhumita Roy"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Pcit-I Corporation Ltd. Vadodra Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Race Course Circle, Baroda. Pan : Aabcg 4029 R "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Deputy Corporation Ltd. Commissioner Of Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Income Tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda. 1(1)(1), Vadodra Pan : Aabcg 4029 R Baroda.

153(3) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2010-11. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. We shall first adjudicate the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1119/Ahd /2015 challenging the order of the ld. Pr.CIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 3. The grievances of the assessee

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the circumstances of the case, were not justified and supportable in law? " 20. After putting reliance upon its decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has replied this question as under: “6. The Assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the circumstances of the case, were not justified and supportable in law? " 20. After putting reliance upon its decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has replied this question as under: “6. The Assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the circumstances of the case, were not justified and supportable in law? " 20. After putting reliance upon its decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has replied this question as under: “6. The Assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the circumstances of the case, were not justified and supportable in law? " 20. After putting reliance upon its decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has replied this question as under: “6. The Assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the circumstances of the case, were not justified and supportable in law? " 20. After putting reliance upon its decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has replied this question as under: “6. The Assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed