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)

1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, is the revenue's reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT(2018) 91 taxmann.com 154

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)

1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, is the revenue's reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT(2018) 91 taxmann.com 154

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)

1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, is the revenue's reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT(2018) 91 taxmann.com 154

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)

1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, is the revenue's reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT(2018) 91 taxmann.com 154

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

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

Disallowances under section 152 to 154 14A 36,066,172/- 10.1 In view of the above, there remains no ambiguity to the fact that the determination of income with respect to the above items is itself in dispute which is pending for adjudication before the respective authorities below. Accordingly, in such facts and circumstances, the amount of penalty cannot

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

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

Disallowances under section 152 to 154 14A 36,066,172/- 10.1 In view of the above, there remains no ambiguity to the fact that the determination of income with respect to the above items is itself in dispute which is pending for adjudication before the respective authorities below. Accordingly, in such facts and circumstances, the amount of penalty cannot

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

disallowed to the total income of the assessee shall be deemed as concealment of income. 19.1. Coming to case on hand, there was no iota of evidence suggesting that the assessee failed to offer an explanation or explanation offered by the assessee was false. Thus, the first situation under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) does not survive

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

disallowed to the total income of the assessee shall be deemed as concealment of income. 19.1. Coming to case on hand, there was no iota of evidence suggesting that the assessee failed to offer an explanation or explanation offered by the assessee was false. Thus, the first situation under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) does not survive

THE ANUP ENGINEERING LTD.(MERGED WITH ANVESHAH HEAVY ENGI. LTD),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 The Anup Engineering Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, (Merged With Anveshah Heavy Vs Bangalore. Engineering Ltd.) Nr.66 Kv Power Station Odhav Road, Odhav, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaqca 0309 R

154. In the absence of any specific provision in the Act, which disallows a deduction because a specific document specified in that section is not annexed to the return, the ITO cannot, under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 143(1

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Disallowance u/s 14A – Rs. 8,07,84,146 as discussed Book Profit u/s. 115JB Rs. 2011,70,46,681 Tax @ 18.5% Rs. 372,16,53,636 9. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,04,62,99,990/- under Section 143C(B) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act under the normal provision

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-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: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance. The Assessing Officer would have to arrive at his determination after furnishing an opportunity to the assessee to produce its accounts and to place on the record all relevant material in support of the circumstances which are considered to be relevant and germane. For this purpose and in light of our observations made earlier in this section

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

154 - 8,48,733 PF Damages 9,83,308 - - - Selling 1,34,316 78,969 Expenses 3,72,640 1,33,522 1,85,737 62,355 Disallowance on Packart 41,92,427 44,39,285 34,37,677 33,96,312 Unit Previous Year's 49,83,552 2,44,175 1,85,994 3,42,683 - Expenses Foreign

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

154 - 8,48,733 PF Damages 9,83,308 - - - Selling 1,34,316 78,969 Expenses 3,72,640 1,33,522 1,85,737 62,355 Disallowance on Packart 41,92,427 44,39,285 34,37,677 33,96,312 Unit Previous Year's 49,83,552 2,44,175 1,85,994 3,42,683 - Expenses Foreign

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

154 - 8,48,733 PF Damages 9,83,308 - - - Selling 1,34,316 78,969 Expenses 3,72,640 1,33,522 1,85,737 62,355 Disallowance on Packart 41,92,427 44,39,285 34,37,677 33,96,312 Unit Previous Year's 49,83,552 2,44,175 1,85,994 3,42,683 - Expenses Foreign

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

154 - 8,48,733 PF Damages 9,83,308 - - - Selling 1,34,316 78,969 Expenses 3,72,640 1,33,522 1,85,737 62,355 Disallowance on Packart 41,92,427 44,39,285 34,37,677 33,96,312 Unit Previous Year's 49,83,552 2,44,175 1,85,994 3,42,683 - Expenses Foreign

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

154 - 8,48,733 PF Damages 9,83,308 - - - Selling 1,34,316 78,969 Expenses 3,72,640 1,33,522 1,85,737 62,355 Disallowance on Packart 41,92,427 44,39,285 34,37,677 33,96,312 Unit Previous Year's 49,83,552 2,44,175 1,85,994 3,42,683 - Expenses Foreign

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

154 - 8,48,733 PF Damages 9,83,308 - - - Selling 1,34,316 78,969 Expenses 3,72,640 1,33,522 1,85,737 62,355 Disallowance on Packart 41,92,427 44,39,285 34,37,677 33,96,312 Unit Previous Year's 49,83,552 2,44,175 1,85,994 3,42,683 - Expenses Foreign

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

154 - 8,48,733 PF Damages 9,83,308 - - - Selling 1,34,316 78,969 Expenses 3,72,640 1,33,522 1,85,737 62,355 Disallowance on Packart 41,92,427 44,39,285 34,37,677 33,96,312 Unit Previous Year's 49,83,552 2,44,175 1,85,994 3,42,683 - Expenses Foreign

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

154 - 8,48,733 PF Damages 9,83,308 - - - Selling 1,34,316 78,969 Expenses 3,72,640 1,33,522 1,85,737 62,355 Disallowance on Packart 41,92,427 44,39,285 34,37,677 33,96,312 Unit Previous Year's 49,83,552 2,44,175 1,85,994 3,42,683 - Expenses Foreign