THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of the expense is warranted under section 115BJB of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The 2nd issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in 8. deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 14,06,42,330/- on account of suppression of production/sales after rejecting

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of the expense is warranted under section 115BJB of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The 2nd issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in 8. deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 14,06,42,330/- on account of suppression of production/sales after rejecting

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

Section 14A of the Act.\n46. In view of our observations made in the Department's appeal for\nA.Y. 2011-12, while dealing with the similar issue Ground No. 2 of the\nDepartment's appeal is dismissed.\nITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016,\n1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017\nAmbalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT\n& DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.\nAsst. Years

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

Section 14A of the Act.\n46.\nIn view of our observations made in the Department's appeal for\nA.Y. 2011-12, while dealing with the similar issue Ground No. 2 of the\nDepartment's appeal is dismissed.\nITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016,\n1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017\nAmbalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT\n& DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.\nAsst. Years

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

269: ITAT, Jaipur. CIT vs. Khanpur Cool Synthicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC): I have examined the contents of remand report and the rejoinder filed by the appellant 10.1 The first ground of appellant is against disallowance of the Act stating that the amount of Rs. 4,62,50,000/- paid in cash to various parties is in violation

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

269: ITAT, Jaipur. CIT vs. Khanpur Cool Synthicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC): I have examined the contents of remand report and the rejoinder filed by the appellant 10.1 The first ground of appellant is against disallowance of the Act stating that the amount of Rs. 4,62,50,000/- paid in cash to various parties is in violation

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

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

269/- 2. Ground No.2. Disallowance of expenditure incurred for doctors for promotion of business - Rs.9,81,46,332/- 3. Ground No.3. Disallowance under section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

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

269/- 2. Ground No.2. Disallowance of expenditure incurred for doctors for promotion of business - Rs.9,81,46,332/- 3. Ground No.3. Disallowance under section

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

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowances of deduction under section 80IA(10) of the Act for Rs. 2,13,425/- after invoking the provision of section 80IE(6) of the Act. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 3 2.1 At the outset we note that the learned AR for the assessee before

THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. AMJAY MEDI-MAX INDIA PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 14A of the Act as made by the AO. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to disturb the finding of the learned CIT (A). Thus the AO is directed to delete the addition made by him. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the absence of any change of circumstances, we do not find

AVANI PETROCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT(CENTRAL), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 14A are squarely not applicable in the instant case. Further during the A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee earned only Rs. 175/- for 'Dividend income, being exempt income and even if the disallowance u/s 14A are made, it cannot exceed Rs. 175/-. In support of this contention, I.T.A No. 1099/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 5 Avani Petrochem

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CHIRIPAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 14A. Since no disallowance u/s 14A can be made when the assessee is having ample interest free funds as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd. reported in 221 Taxman 109, the Learned CIT(A) in appeal directed the Learned AO to delete the addition on interest

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 55. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO wrongly stated that after adjustment of credit balance of general reserve there will be no brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal

M/S.AARYAVART INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) PRESENTLY CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.219/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Dy.Cit बनाम/ Ff – 17/A, Pariseema Complex Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. C.G. Road Presently Cen. Cir.1(3) Navrangpura Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadca 4844 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 30.03.2022, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Whereby The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2012-13

Section 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated 09.03.2015, determining the total income at Rs.73,57,487/-. The AO made the following additions/disallowances: i. Disallowance of Rs.1,06,269

DCIT, CIRCLE-2 (1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JAGSON COLORCHEM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.112/Ahd/2017 With Co No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14

disallowed. 3.6 It has been noticed that in the assessment proceedings, the appellant only submitted that the appellant was not under any liability of TDS because none of the services were rendered in India. It was also claimed that the payment to the commission agents were made in their account maintained outside India in foreign currency. The commission payments were

DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, both the issues relating to disallowance of deduction\nunder section 80IA of Rs

269/- from\nthree windmills, which included Rs.56,75,193/- from the Kutch unit.\nHowever, in the ITR, revenue from windmill operations was shown only at\nRs.1,75,33,076/-, thereby excluding the Kutch unit, though deduction\nunder section 80IA was claimed on the profits of all the three units. To\nreconcile the difference, the AO issued notice under section

KADAM REALITY PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with directions as above

269 ITR 535 (P&H). Further, this view was accepted in CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. [1971] 187 I.T.A No. 1793/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 6 Kadam Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO ITR 363 (All) in a case, where money was borrowed for purposes of business, but advanced at a concessional rate to its directors, so that