ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

1) of\nthe Income-tax Act. The order of the CIT(A) to the contrary is not\nsustainable. We accordingly set aside the disallowance of Rs.2,18,58,050/-\nand allow this ground of appeal of the assessee in full.\n17. Disallowance of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss\nRs.2,78,31,758/-\n17.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1. Disallowance in relation to administrative expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Tax effect- Rs. 65,88,045) 1.1 The learned AO and Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disallowing the administrative expense under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) over and above the suo-moto disallowance of administrative expenses

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. AXIS BANK LTD, ELISBRIDGE

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1. Disallowance in relation to administrative expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Tax effect- Rs. 65,88,045) 1.1 The learned AO and Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disallowing the administrative expense under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) over and above the suo-moto disallowance of administrative expenses

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1. Disallowance in relation to administrative expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Tax effect- Rs. 65,88,045) 1.1 The learned AO and Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disallowing the administrative expense under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) over and above the suo-moto disallowance of administrative expenses

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED, ELLISBRIDGE

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1. Disallowance in relation to administrative expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Tax effect- Rs. 65,88,045) 1.1 The learned AO and Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disallowing the administrative expense under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) over and above the suo-moto disallowance of administrative expenses

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 32(1),43(1) and 43(6) to the tune of Rs.1,13,10,975/-under normal provisions of the Act:- 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 1,13,10,975/- made by the AO on account disallowance of/depreciation on Goodwill

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance of Rs.1,68,88,558/- as made by both the lower authorities. The assessee's balance sheet schedule 10 revealed it to have advanced a gross amount of Rs.5,40,74,507/- to its nine domestic and overseas sister concerns namely M/s. Casil Health Products Ltd., CPL Infrastructure Ltd., Apollo Hospitals International Ltd., Kadera

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance of Rs.1,68,88,558/- as made by both the lower authorities. The assessee's balance sheet schedule 10 revealed it to have advanced a gross amount of Rs.5,40,74,507/- to its nine domestic and overseas sister concerns namely M/s. Casil Health Products Ltd., CPL Infrastructure Ltd., Apollo Hospitals International Ltd., Kadera

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The facts of the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd vs. DCIT and the facts of the case of the petitioner are identical and not different and as such, the Tribunal could not have relied upon the decision of Orissa High Court while distinguishing the facts of the case of the petitioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The facts of the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd vs. DCIT and the facts of the case of the petitioner are identical and not different and as such, the Tribunal could not have relied upon the decision of Orissa High Court while distinguishing the facts of the case of the petitioner

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The facts of the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd vs. DCIT and the facts of the case of the petitioner are identical and not different and as such, the Tribunal could not have relied upon the decision of Orissa High Court while distinguishing the facts of the case of the petitioner

THE JT.CIT, (OSD)CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The facts of the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd vs. DCIT and the facts of the case of the petitioner are identical and not different and as such, the Tribunal could not have relied upon the decision of Orissa High Court while distinguishing the facts of the case of the petitioner

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 needs to be made with respect to the exempted income in terms of the provisions of clause (f) to section 115JB of the Act while determining the book profit. The provision of clause (f) of explanation 1 to subsection 2 of section 115JB of the Act requires that while computing book profit, the expenses in relation to exempted income

M/S.HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance / adjustment shall be made in this respect as the decision of Apex I.T.A No. 177/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 15 M/s. HDB Financial Services Ltd. . vs. PCIT Court is binding on the AO (emphasis applied). Also as per the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act the said bad debt claimed by the appellant

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

254 of the Act and the total loss was determined at (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- after making following additions/disallowances: 1. Hire charges to Blue Bell Finance Ltd. Rs. 5,24,421/- 2. Disallowance of interest on investment Rs. 2,25,73,649/- 3. Disallowance of various expenses under the head of office expenses Rs. 39,50,678/- 4. Professional & Legal

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

section 133(6) of the Act and made disallowances of claim of the assessee. In this regard we find that the learned CIT(A) has given flawless finding that after resolution of dispute of jurisdiction over issuance of BU permission, the AMC has issued such permission for remaining units to the assessee and certified that the project was completed before

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

section 133(6) of the Act and made disallowances of claim of the assessee. In this regard we find that the learned CIT(A) has given flawless finding that after resolution of dispute of jurisdiction over issuance of BU permission, the AMC has issued such permission for remaining units to the assessee and certified that the project was completed before

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

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance. 4. Accordingly

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

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance. 4. Accordingly