THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the disallowance made by the AO was partly allowed by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore both the assessee and Revenue have raised their respective grievance against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue. 4. The facts relating to the issue are that the AO noted

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the disallowance made by the AO was partly allowed by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore both the assessee and Revenue have raised their respective grievance against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue. 4. The facts relating to the issue are that the AO noted

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the disallowance made by the AO was partly allowed by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore both the assessee and Revenue have raised their respective grievance against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue. 4. The facts relating to the issue are that the AO noted

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the disallowance made by the AO was partly allowed by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore both the assessee and Revenue have raised their respective grievance against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue. 4. The facts relating to the issue are that the AO noted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. D.B. CORP. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the cross appeals of revenue and the assesee are dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is warranted where no exempt income has been earned during a particular year. Illustratively, reliance can be placed on the following judicial precedents: CIT v Hiren Aluminium Ltd [Tax Appeal No. 171

D.B. CORP. LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the cross appeals of revenue and the assesee are dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is warranted where no exempt income has been earned during a particular year. Illustratively, reliance can be placed on the following judicial precedents: CIT v Hiren Aluminium Ltd [Tax Appeal No. 171

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Abs Tower, Old Circle 1(1)(1), Padra Road, Baroda-390007 Baroda Pan : Aaacg 6725 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.12.2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta:

Section 80IA of the Act was reduced by an amount of Rs.31,98,48,171/-. 15. The matter was carried in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who upheld the disallowance

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

THE ITO,PATAN WARD-3,, MEHSANA vs. M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK TRANSPORT, MEHSANA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2008-09

171/- was thus disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. The learned

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

Section 14A read with Rule 8D, to make disallowance of Rs.76,15,655/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(b) and Rs. 8,97,050/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(c). The ld. CIT(A) partially confirmed the additions by excluding bank guarantee commission, legal/stamp duty charges and bank charges which were added

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

Section 14A read with Rule 8D, to make disallowance of Rs.76,15,655/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(b) and Rs. 8,97,050/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(c). The ld. CIT(A) partially confirmed the additions by excluding bank guarantee commission, legal/stamp duty charges and bank charges which were added