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

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

disallowance made by him is deleted. The appellant, accordingly, gets the relief of Rs. 5,89,29,812/-." The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT relying on decision of CIT(A) referred supra has held as under- "11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact, that the Assessee is engaged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

disallowance made by him is deleted. The appellant, accordingly, gets the relief of Rs. 5,89,29,812/-." The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT relying on decision of CIT(A) referred supra has held as under- "11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact, that the Assessee is engaged

ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

disallowance made by him is deleted. The appellant, accordingly, gets the relief of Rs. 5,89,29,812/-." The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT relying on decision of CIT(A) referred supra has held as under- "11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact, that the Assessee is engaged

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET (DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

disallowance made by him is deleted. The appellant, accordingly, gets the relief of Rs. 5,89,29,812/-." The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT relying on decision of CIT(A) referred supra has held as under- "11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact, that the Assessee is engaged

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt. It was held that the possibility of a personal or\nnon-business element in such expenditure could not be ruled out.\nConsequently, 10% of the aggregate amount of site and site development\nexpenses, i.e., Rs.13,47,839/-, was disallowed and added to the total\nincome

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt. It was held that the possibility of a personal or\nnon-business element in such expenditure could not be ruled out.\nConsequently, 10% of the aggregate amount of site and site development\nexpenses, i.e., Rs. 13,47,839/-, was disallowed and added to the total

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt. It was held that the possibility of a personal or\nnon-business element in such expenditure could not be ruled out.\nConsequently, 10% of the aggregate amount of site and site development\nexpenses, i.e., Rs.13,47,839/-, was disallowed and added to the total\nincome

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

197], or on or after that date) as may be specified in the declaration ] 10. As per these provisions of Section 2(I7J, for other than an Indian company, a company means any body corporate incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India and Vega UAE is definitely not an Indian company. Now, we have of examine

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

197], or on or after that date) as may be specified in the declaration ] 10. As per these provisions of Section 2(I7J, for other than an Indian company, a company means any body corporate incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India and Vega UAE is definitely not an Indian company. Now, we have of examine

ROTOMAG MOTORS & CONTROLS (P) LTD.,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

Appeal is allowed

Disallowance of Foreign Commission\nu/s.40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 (Rs.1,42,197/-) – Ground No. 1 and 2\nDuring assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that\nthe assessee had paid commission to non-resident agents without\ndeduction of tax at source. According to the AO, such payments represented\nincome deemed to accrue or arise in India within the meaning of section

SHRI VIMAL RAMNIKLAL AMBANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

197 and submitted that the disallowances on account of the administrative expenses under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules could be made as per the formula provided therein. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance over and above the amount calculated under the said rule under 14A of the Act. 8.1 The learned AR further submitted that the disallowances under

SHRI VIMAL RAMNIKLAL AMBANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

197 and submitted that the disallowances on account of the administrative expenses under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules could be made as per the formula provided therein. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance over and above the amount calculated under the said rule under 14A of the Act. 8.1 The learned AR further submitted that the disallowances under

RAMESHKUMAR G. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5) PRESENT JURISDICTION ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

disallowance of expenses were also rendered infructuous.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "147", "148", "142(1)", "133(6)", "271(1)(b)", "44AD", "69A", "197

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

LOK PRAKASHAN LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 14A, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance.” ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 7 12.4 In view of the above, we are not convinced with the order of the ld. CIT-A and thus, we direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee

ANKUR SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 645/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ankur Scientific The Dcit बनाम/ Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1) Vs. ‘Ankur’ Baroda Nr. Navrachna School Sama, Varoda 390 024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabca 7801 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Surendra Modiyani, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr

section 14A amounting to Rs.7,32,684/- in addition to Rs.66,810/- already made in the Return of income by the appellant. Your appellant submits that the disallowance is not justified and prays that the same be deleted. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.16,20,000/- on account of interest free loan granted