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 14A, read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.” 9.4. Further jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT -Vs.- Gujarat Fluro Chemicals Ltd [2023] 155 taxmann.com 135 [Guj] had considered the entire issue in detail and judgements rendered by different High Courts, Special Bench of ITAT and held as follows: 14 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023

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 14A, read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.” 9.4. Further jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT -Vs.- Gujarat Fluro Chemicals Ltd [2023] 155 taxmann.com 135 [Guj] had considered the entire issue in detail and judgements rendered by different High Courts, Special Bench of ITAT and held as follows: 14 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

section 32 of the Act and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Warehousing Corporation,104 ITR 1 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd.,155 ITR 711 as also the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad

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

ORIENTAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

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

Section 14A:Interest Expenses: Rs. 21,80,985/-. (+) Administrative/Other Expenses: Rs. 30,26,552/- = Rs. 52,07,537/-. 16. Before the Ld. CIT(A), The assessee argued that the AO did not correctly apply the provisions of Rule 8D of IT Rules, particularly in relation to the interest disallowance. They contended that the AO did not properly segregate the funds

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

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

Section 14A:Interest Expenses: Rs. 21,80,985/-. (+) Administrative/Other Expenses: Rs. 30,26,552/- = Rs. 52,07,537/-. 16. Before the Ld. CIT(A), The assessee argued that the AO did not correctly apply the provisions of Rule 8D of IT Rules, particularly in relation to the interest disallowance. They contended that the AO did not properly segregate the funds

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

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

Section 14A:Interest Expenses: Rs. 21,80,985/-. (+) Administrative/Other Expenses: Rs. 30,26,552/- = Rs. 52,07,537/-. 16. Before the Ld. CIT(A), The assessee argued that the AO did not correctly apply the provisions of Rule 8D of IT Rules, particularly in relation to the interest disallowance. They contended that the AO did not properly segregate the funds

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

TML INDUSTRIES LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance is called for under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 7. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that

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.

disallowing legitimate expenditure incurred by the appellant-company and fully covered under the provisions of section 35-D of the I.T Act. 4. The appellant leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of appeal. 2.1 The assessee has modified ground no.1D which is detailed as under

KOSHAMBH MULTITRED PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance .That therefore, the assessee could not be charged with having underreported any income for levy of penalty under section 270A(2) of the Act. He further referred to the provisions of Section Koshambh Multitred Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2020-21 155

URMIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 14A(2) of the Act, then he could not invoke Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules for computation of amount of expenditure to be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. In support of the same, he relied upon the judgements of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. CIMS Hospital (P.) Ltd., reported

URMIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 14A(2) of the Act, then he could not invoke Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules for computation of amount of expenditure to be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. In support of the same, he relied upon the judgements of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. CIMS Hospital (P.) Ltd., reported

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the balance amount of ₹ 10,78,68,462/-. However, learned CIT (A) was pleased to delete the addition made by the AO by observing that the AO has not established with the documentary evidence that the assessee was engaged/involved in any colourable device as alleged by the AO. 10.3 In the backdrop of the above stated facts