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 :

250 5 Repair and Maintenance – Plant & Machinery 15 Grounds Relating to 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 1,85,737 4 Disallowance of 5% 2067/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Revenue 62,355 2 Selling Expenses 16 Adjustment to Book 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue Gratuity: 5 Profit under Section

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 :

250 5 Repair and Maintenance – Plant & Machinery 15 Grounds Relating to 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 1,85,737 4 Disallowance of 5% 2067/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Revenue 62,355 2 Selling Expenses 16 Adjustment to Book 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue Gratuity: 5 Profit under Section

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 :

250 5 Repair and Maintenance – Plant & Machinery 15 Grounds Relating to 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 1,85,737 4 Disallowance of 5% 2067/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Revenue 62,355 2 Selling Expenses 16 Adjustment to Book 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue Gratuity: 5 Profit under Section

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 :

250 5 Repair and Maintenance – Plant & Machinery 15 Grounds Relating to 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 1,85,737 4 Disallowance of 5% 2067/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Revenue 62,355 2 Selling Expenses 16 Adjustment to Book 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue Gratuity: 5 Profit under Section

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 :

250 5 Repair and Maintenance – Plant & Machinery 15 Grounds Relating to 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 1,85,737 4 Disallowance of 5% 2067/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Revenue 62,355 2 Selling Expenses 16 Adjustment to Book 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue Gratuity: 5 Profit under Section

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 :

250 5 Repair and Maintenance – Plant & Machinery 15 Grounds Relating to 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 1,85,737 4 Disallowance of 5% 2067/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Revenue 62,355 2 Selling Expenses 16 Adjustment to Book 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue Gratuity: 5 Profit under Section

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 :

250 5 Repair and Maintenance – Plant & Machinery 15 Grounds Relating to 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 1,85,737 4 Disallowance of 5% 2067/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Revenue 62,355 2 Selling Expenses 16 Adjustment to Book 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue Gratuity: 5 Profit under Section

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

250/- Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify, or change all or any of the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and decided. 5 6. The grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal relate to multiple additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer in the final assessment order passed pursuant

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

5 SCC 482]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of doubts”. 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of Section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

5 SCC 482]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of doubts”. 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of Section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

5 SCC 482]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of doubts”. 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of Section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

5 SCC 482]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of doubts”. 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of Section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

5. With this brief background, we have examined the facts of the case as also the law pronounced in this regard. 6. As far as the Assessing Officer's action is concerned, the disallowance has been made on the basis of a calculation of the proportionate interest alleged to be attributable to the investment earning exempted dividend income

THE ASST. CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250 (SC)dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year. The Gujarat High Court in the case ITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016, 1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT & DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Asst. Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 25– of Dipesh

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250 (SC)dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year. The Gujarat High Court in the case ITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016, 1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT & DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Asst. Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 25– of Dipesh

RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 22.11.2021 pertaining to Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry has notified that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 581 days. In order to explain the reasons for the impugned delay, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A)/NFAC order was passed against the assessee

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

5% of miscellaneous expenses, is\nallowed.\"\n27.\nIn view of the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in assesse's own case, the\nrelevant extracts which have been reproduced above, Ground No. 1 of the\nDepartment's appeal is dismissed.\nGround No. 2: Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made under Section\n14A of the Act amounting to Rs.1

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

5% of miscellaneous expenses, is\nallowed.\n27. In view of the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in assesse's own case, the\nrelevant extracts which have been reproduced above, Ground No. 1 of the\nDepartment's appeal is dismissed.\nGround No. 2: Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made under Section\n14A of the Act amounting to Rs.1