VARUN SATYAPAL SINGHAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3( NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

section 40A(2). Business needs have to be determined by the businessman and not by the Assessing Officer, and if it is appeared to the AO that a particular person could not fetch this much salary from the open market, only then he can disallow part of that salary. 10. During the course of hearing, it was brought

GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowed by the assessee under Section 37 of the Act. However, as the contribution to Mukhyamantri Shree Swachchta Nidhi Gujarat for sanitation work was eligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Act, the assessee had rightly claimed the deduction. The Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 80G(2)(a)(iiihk) and (iiihl

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed on an estimated basis @7.5%, holding that a portion of these expenses was in the nature of benefits, freebies or conference-related incentives to medical practitioners, prohibited under the Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, and consequently hit by Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. 24. The learned counsel for the assessee placed

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed on an estimated basis @7.5%, holding that a portion of these expenses was in the nature of benefits, freebies or conference-related incentives to medical practitioners, prohibited under the Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, and consequently hit by Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. 24. The learned counsel for the assessee placed

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed on an estimated basis @7.5%, holding that a portion of these expenses was in the nature of benefits, freebies or conference-related incentives to medical practitioners, prohibited under the Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, and consequently hit by Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. 24. The learned counsel for the assessee placed

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed on an estimated basis @7.5%, holding that a portion of these expenses was in the nature of benefits, freebies or conference-related incentives to medical practitioners, prohibited under the Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, and consequently hit by Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. 24. The learned counsel for the assessee placed

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed on an estimated basis @7.5%, holding that a portion of these expenses was in the nature of benefits, freebies or conference-related incentives to medical practitioners, prohibited under the Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, and consequently hit by Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. 24. The learned counsel for the assessee placed

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed on an estimated basis @7.5%, holding that a portion of these expenses was in the nature of benefits, freebies or conference-related incentives to medical practitioners, prohibited under the Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, and consequently hit by Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. 24. The learned counsel for the assessee placed

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IE of the Act in Sikkim Unit on other incomes. 60. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed deduction of profit derived from Sikkim Unit under section 80-IE of the Act. As per the AO, there were certain incomes considered by the assessee eligible for deduction under section

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1) NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nirma Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-380 009 Circle-3(1)(1), Pan : Aaacn 5350 K Ahmedabad-380009 अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 10.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows:-

disallowed purely on the ground that the amendment to section 244A sub- section (a) & (aa) of the Act was made w.e.f. 01.06.2016 since the present appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore, the amended provisions of section 244A of the Act could not be made applicable for the year under appeal. 9. We have perused the judgement

TRISHA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3) vide order dated 05.03.2015. The Assessing Officer made the following additions: 1 Total income as per return of Rs.73,34,156/- income Additions: (a) Disallowance

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

disallowance of Rs.7,03,990/- in its computation of total income. 16. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed both the additions and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 17. Aggrieved against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us raising

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

disallowance of Rs.7,03,990/- in its computation of total income. 16. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed both the additions and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 17. Aggrieved against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us raising

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

disallowed on an estimated basis @7.5%,\nholding that a portion of these expenses was in the nature of benefits, freebies\nor conference-related incentives to medical practitioners, prohibited under the\nMedical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations,\n2002, and consequently hit by Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act.\n24. The learned counsel for the assessee placed

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

disallowed on an estimated basis @7.5%,\nholding that a portion of these expenses was in the nature of benefits, freebies\nor conference-related incentives to medical practitioners, prohibited under the\nMedical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations,\n2002, and consequently hit by Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act.\n24. The learned counsel for the assessee placed

VIMAL COAL PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance. For the sake of\nclarity the operative part of the decision of CIT(A) is reproduced\nhereunder:-\n4.\n\"I have considered the facts of the case and submission filed by the appellant carefully.\nI find that the nature of donations paid by the appellant is not covered by the clause\n80G(2)(iiihk) i.e. donation paid to Swachh

SHYAM REALTIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRLCE-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1387/Ahd/2024 & 1388/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shyam Realities The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Tejendra Arcade Circle-2(2)(1) V/S. Ganji Farak Mill Compound Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rakhiyal Cross Road Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad – 380 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abvfs 2603 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017–18 & 2018–19 Are Directed Against The Respective Appellate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 27.06.2024. In The Impugned Orders, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans To The Extent Of Rs.36,69,000/- For A.Y. 2017–18 & Rs.38,94,295/- For A.Y. 2018–19, As Originally Disallowed By

156 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat). • Hareshbhai Sakariya [2023] 148 taxmann.com 115 (Surat-Trib.). ITA Nos.1387 & 1388/Ahd/2024 Shyam Realties vs. Dy.CIT, Cir.2(2)(1) Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 These decisions were cited to support the proposition that interest cannot be disallowed in the absence of a sustainable addition of principal under section

SHYAM REALTIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRLCE-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1387/Ahd/2024 & 1388/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shyam Realities The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Tejendra Arcade Circle-2(2)(1) V/S. Ganji Farak Mill Compound Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rakhiyal Cross Road Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad – 380 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abvfs 2603 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017–18 & 2018–19 Are Directed Against The Respective Appellate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 27.06.2024. In The Impugned Orders, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans To The Extent Of Rs.36,69,000/- For A.Y. 2017–18 & Rs.38,94,295/- For A.Y. 2018–19, As Originally Disallowed By

156 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat). • Hareshbhai Sakariya [2023] 148 taxmann.com 115 (Surat-Trib.). ITA Nos.1387 & 1388/Ahd/2024 Shyam Realties vs. Dy.CIT, Cir.2(2)(1) Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 These decisions were cited to support the proposition that interest cannot be disallowed in the absence of a sustainable addition of principal under section