ORIENTAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1,06,18,997/-. The AO noted that the assessee furnished only the names and amounts of trade payables without any supporting documents like ledgers, bank statements, or purchase bills. No details regarding payments made in subsequent years were provided. No confirmation of these trade payables, communication copies, PANs, or addresses of these parties were supplied to facilitate independent inquiry

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1,06,18,997/-. The AO noted that the assessee furnished only the names and amounts of trade payables without any supporting documents like ledgers, bank statements, or purchase bills. No details regarding payments made in subsequent years were provided. No confirmation of these trade payables, communication copies, PANs, or addresses of these parties were supplied to facilitate independent inquiry

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1,06,18,997/-. The AO noted that the assessee furnished only the names and amounts of trade payables without any supporting documents like ledgers, bank statements, or purchase bills. No details regarding payments made in subsequent years were provided. No confirmation of these trade payables, communication copies, PANs, or addresses of these parties were supplied to facilitate independent inquiry

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Disallowance u/s 14A – Rs. 8,07,84,146 as discussed Book Profit u/s. 115JB Rs. 2011,70,46,681 Tax @ 18.5% Rs. 372,16,53,636 9. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,04,62,99,990/- under Section 143C(B) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act under the normal provision

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

disallowance u/s 40A(9) of Rs.20,38,747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

disallowance u/s 40A(9) of Rs.20,38,747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

disallowance u/s 40A(9) of Rs.20,38,747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

disallowance u/s 40A(9) of Rs.20,38,747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

disallowance u/s 40A(9) of Rs.20,38,747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

disallowance u/s 40A(9) of Rs.20,38,747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1 & 1.1 is accordingly dismissed. 14. Ground no. 2 to 2.5, it was pointed out related to disallowance of expenses made for the purposes of earning exempt income as per the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. The grounds reads as under: 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the addition made by the learned Assessing

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1 & 1.1 is accordingly dismissed. 14. Ground no. 2 to 2.5, it was pointed out related to disallowance of expenses made for the purposes of earning exempt income as per the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. The grounds reads as under: 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the addition made by the learned Assessing

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1 & 1.1 is accordingly dismissed. 14. Ground no. 2 to 2.5, it was pointed out related to disallowance of expenses made for the purposes of earning exempt income as per the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. The grounds reads as under: 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the addition made by the learned Assessing

MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance is unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. 6. Levy of interest u/s 234A/234B/234C & 234D of the Act is not justified. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified.” 7. 2. The Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 relate to the upward adjustment of Rs. 27,11,550/- in respect of transaction of sale

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As against this the Apex Court held that despite the assessee being a reputed company having great expertise available with it, it is possible that even it can make a silly make. The relevant para of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced herein below. "Notwithstanding the fact that the assessee

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

246/- difference of credit balance with one of the creditor Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. as unaccounted income of the appellant. 2 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition not appreciating that appellant due to shortage of pig iron material sold goods in cash, made payment through shroff to the creditor and subsequently reconciled the difference preparing

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

246/- difference of credit balance with one of the creditor Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. as unaccounted income of the appellant. 2 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition not appreciating that appellant due to shortage of pig iron material sold goods in cash, made payment through shroff to the creditor and subsequently reconciled the difference preparing