BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

1,487 results for “disallowance”+ Section 2(22)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,041Delhi5,431Bangalore2,600Chennai2,316Kolkata1,809Ahmedabad1,487Jaipur845Hyderabad839Pune817Indore661Surat476Chandigarh469Visakhapatnam342Cochin304Raipur298Cuttack292Rajkot245Nagpur226Lucknow206Amritsar179Agra146Karnataka137Jodhpur110Guwahati93Ranchi81Allahabad78SC75Panaji62Calcutta46Telangana34Patna31Jabalpur30Varanasi29Dehradun28Kerala25A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6Himachal Pradesh5Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana4Orissa2Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Andhra Pradesh1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)65Addition to Income59Disallowance54Section 14A47Section 6840Section 26335Section 54F33Deduction30Section 3728Section 80

MOHAN B AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1009/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Mohan B. Agrawal, D.C.I.T., 4Th Floor, Shoppers Plaza-Ii, Vs. Circle-4(2), Opp. B.S.N.L Telephone Exchange, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaopa4030C

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

section 2(22)(e) of the Act do not apply when shareholder is paying interest on such loan and advances. In this respect the assessee placed his reliance on the multiple judgment of Kolkata Tribunal. 5. However the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing a under: Therefore, I decide to confirm the addition

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. PETAL MOTOCON PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 1,487 · Page 1 of 75

...
26
Section 4025
Penalty25
ITA 483/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 483/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 I.T.O, Petal Motocon Pvt. Ltd., Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. 131, M H Mill Compound, Ahmedabad. Planet House, Khokhra Circle, Maninagar East, Ahmedabad-380008. Pan: Aafcp0078F

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The learned DR vehemently supported the order of the AO. 8. On the other hand the learned AR before us contended as under: Since the “assessee ” herein is not at all a “registered share-holder” of the “payer company”, no addition can be made as deemed dividend: Since the assessee-company

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

ITA 1184/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- These cross appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 09.03.2018 passed under Section

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- These cross appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 09.03.2018 passed under Section

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. SHRI KETAN REALITIES PVT. LTD, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1383/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

section 2(22)(e) of the Act will be applicable, which has escaped from assessment to tax. In-response, the assessee filed a letter to treat the original return, in response to the 148 notice. Thereafter, the assessee was issued show-cause notice why not to make addition the unsecured loan transaction taxable u/s.2(22)(e

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 331/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (in short the ‘CIT(A)’), (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) all dated 16.03.2020 for the Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. As the issues involved in the three appeals

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 330/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (in short the ‘CIT(A)’), (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) all dated 16.03.2020 for the Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. As the issues involved in the three appeals

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 332/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (in short the ‘CIT(A)’), (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) all dated 16.03.2020 for the Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. As the issues involved in the three appeals

KESAR BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,BANASKANTHA vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the PCIT and restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the assessee is thus allowed

ITA 790/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-2028 Kesar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit 1St Floor Shri Kesar Cold Vs. Ahmedabad-3 Storage Plot No.B-2 To 9, Rev Survey No.85/2 Paiki Near Hotel Jyoti Vil Banaskantha. Pan : Aabck 4923 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 269S

22 on 30.10.2018 declaring total income at a loss of Rs. (–) 27,49,550. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under the E-Assessment Scheme, 2020 with the reason “Very Low PBDIT (Profit before Depreciation, Interest and Taxes) as compared to business turnover.” Pursuant thereto, notices under section 143(2) dated

M/S. RY MIDAS ALLUMINIUM PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 729/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Ry Midas Aluminums Pvt. Ltd., Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), B-408, 4Th Floor, No.117, Tribhuwan Industrial Estate, Vs Kathwada, Singarwa Road, Kathwada- Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, 382430, Ahmedabad. Panjarapole, Ambawadi, Pan :Aaecm 8066 F Ahmedabad. (Appllant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vinit Moondra, Ca Revenue By : Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Moondra, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(va)

22)(e ) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shripad Concrete Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we delete the addition to the tune of Rs.96,47,541/-. Thus, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee relates to addition of Rs.1

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

ITA 1668/AHD/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChowkshiFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

e) 4877593 Total expenses disallowable u/s. 14A [(i) +(/)] 30478534 Less: Disallowance actually made [as per order dated 7. 48,77,592 4.10 giving effect to CIT(A) 's order dated 27.01.2010 Total disallowance :: 2,56,00,942 Accordingly a disallowance of Rs. 2,56,00,942/- is made and added back to the total income of the assessee. Reliance

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not arise. Consequently, no question of law arises. Tax appeals are dismissed.” 21. Respectfully following order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is rejected. 22. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 773/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not arise. Consequently, no question of law arises. Tax appeals are dismissed.” 21. Respectfully following order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is rejected. 22. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 817/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not arise. Consequently, no question of law arises. Tax appeals are dismissed.” 21. Respectfully following order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is rejected. 22. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not arise. Consequently, no question of law arises. Tax appeals are dismissed.” 21. Respectfully following order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is rejected. 22. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not arise. Consequently, no question of law arises. Tax appeals are dismissed.” 21. Respectfully following order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is rejected. 22. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT

SMT. SHARMILA VIKRAM MAHURKAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 399/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, SrFor Respondent: ITA Nos. 2133/Ahd/2014 & 399/Ahd/15 (M/s. Checkmate

e., prior to filing of return under section 139(1) - Held, yes - Assessee State transport corporation collected a sum being provident fund contribution from its employees - However, it had deposited lesser sum in provident fund account -Assessing Officer disallowed same under section 43B - However, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted disallowance on ground that employees contribution was deposited before filing return - Whether since

M/S. CHECKMATE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2133/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, SrFor Respondent: ITA Nos. 2133/Ahd/2014 & 399/Ahd/15 (M/s. Checkmate

e., prior to filing of return under section 139(1) - Held, yes - Assessee State transport corporation collected a sum being provident fund contribution from its employees - However, it had deposited lesser sum in provident fund account -Assessing Officer disallowed same under section 43B - However, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted disallowance on ground that employees contribution was deposited before filing return - Whether since

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 681/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2014-15 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd. Ahmedabad. ‘Apollo House’ Rashmi Society Nr.Mithakhali Six Roads Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacg 7248 P

For Respondent: Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195(2)Section 40

22,165/- minus Rs.3,98,520/- (disallowed by the assessee)], and determined total income at Rs.158,80,43,590/- under normal provision. This disallowance of Rs.1,34,23,645/- was further added to the book profit declared at Rs.166,87,64,960/- under section 115JB for MAT purpose. 10. Aggrieved against these disallowances the assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. PRECIMETAL CAST PVT. LTD.,,KADI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 3499/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

section 2(22)(e), it is required that the assessee company must be a shareholder in the company from whom the loan or advance has been taken and it does not provide that any shareholder in the assessee company who had taken any loan or advance from another company in which such shareholder is also a shareholder I.T.A No. 3499/Ahd/2015