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

194/- for benchmarking of purchase of coal. (3) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the Section MA disallowance

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

194/- for benchmarking of purchase of coal. (3) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the Section MA disallowance

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

194/- for benchmarking of purchase of coal. (3) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the Section MA disallowance

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

194/- for benchmarking of purchase of coal. (3) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the Section MA disallowance

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2970/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T., M/S Deloitee Haskins & Sells, Circle-1(2), Vs. 31-Nutan Bharat Society, Vadodara. Alkapuri, Baroda.

disallowance of the payment made by the assessee to the hotels on A.Y. 2014-2015 12 account of non-deduction of TDS under section 194

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A was already considered and decided by my predecessor in the appeal against the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act referred to above. Hence, the A. O. was not justified in enhancing such disallowance by reworking the disallowance from interest and administrative expenses. Further, it is noticed that the provisions of Rule 8D are applicable from

THE ARVIND LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 862/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 Arvind Ltd.(Earlier Known As Arvind A.C.I.T., Mills Ltd.), Vs. Circle-1, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad. Naroda, Ahmedabad.

194 Taxman 203 and of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390. Accordingly, now the admitted position is that up to A.Y. 2007-08 the disallowance has to be made only on the basis of sub- section

HYDCO ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,CHHATRAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

194(7) are very much applicable. 4.11 In view of the aforesaid discussion, it apparent that the AO was perfectly in order for invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, as the appellant has failed to comply with the provisions of section 194C(6) & 194C(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and therefore, the disallowance

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the scrap income while computing the deduction under section 80IC of the Act. 9.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition. 9.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 9.4 Before us, Ld. DR contended

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the scrap income while computing the deduction under section 80IC of the Act. 9.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition. 9.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 9.4 Before us, Ld. DR contended

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

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act which was denied by the AO but later allowed by the ld. CIT(A) . Similar issue arose in assessment year 2007-08 in Revenue’s appeal, and even grounds of appeal are similar. Our decision in ITA No. 2308/Ahd/2011 for assessment year 2007-08 as adjudicated above in preceding para of this order shall

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

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act which was denied by the AO but later allowed by the ld. CIT(A) . Similar issue arose in assessment year 2007-08 in Revenue’s appeal, and even grounds of appeal are similar. Our decision in ITA No. 2308/Ahd/2011 for assessment year 2007-08 as adjudicated above in preceding para of this order shall

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

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act which was denied by the AO but later allowed by the ld. CIT(A) . Similar issue arose in assessment year 2007-08 in Revenue’s appeal, and even grounds of appeal are similar. Our decision in ITA No. 2308/Ahd/2011 for assessment year 2007-08 as adjudicated above in preceding para of this order shall

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), , AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD.(ON BEHALF OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 194-I of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 194-I of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

194/- only. However, the assessee has not made any disallowance against such exempted income under the provisions of section 14A read

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT