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)

D of the Rules. After discussing the decisions which have also been relied on by the appellant, the Hon'ble Bench has concluded that; “In view of our foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity with the orders of the AO and we hold that the AO has rightly disallowed the expenditure of Rs.73,07,018/ by invoking the provisions

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)

D of the Rules. After discussing the decisions which have also been relied on by the appellant, the Hon'ble Bench has concluded that; “In view of our foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity with the orders of the AO and we hold that the AO has rightly disallowed the expenditure of Rs.73,07,018/ by invoking the provisions

THE DCITGANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Dividend Income exempt u/s.10(34): It is submitted by the assessee that the dividend income of Rs.3,25,15,594/- which is exempt u/s.10(34) has to be deducted as per Explanation I to Sec.115JB of the Act. The assessee’s claim has been examined. It is seen that the P&L A/c. has been created by the aforesaid

M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Dividend Income exempt u/s.10(34): It is submitted by the assessee that the dividend income of Rs.3,25,15,594/- which is exempt u/s.10(34) has to be deducted as per Explanation I to Sec.115JB of the Act. The assessee’s claim has been examined. It is seen that the P&L A/c. has been created by the aforesaid

M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE JT.CIT.,GNR RANGE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Dividend Income exempt u/s.10(34): It is submitted by the assessee that the dividend income of Rs.3,25,15,594/- which is exempt u/s.10(34) has to be deducted as per Explanation I to Sec.115JB of the Act. The assessee’s claim has been examined. It is seen that the P&L A/c. has been created by the aforesaid

THE ACIT,GNR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Dividend Income exempt u/s.10(34): It is submitted by the assessee that the dividend income of Rs.3,25,15,594/- which is exempt u/s.10(34) has to be deducted as per Explanation I to Sec.115JB of the Act. The assessee’s claim has been examined. It is seen that the P&L A/c. has been created by the aforesaid

THE ACIT,GNR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Dividend Income exempt u/s.10(34): It is submitted by the assessee that the dividend income of Rs.3,25,15,594/- which is exempt u/s.10(34) has to be deducted as per Explanation I to Sec.115JB of the Act. The assessee’s claim has been examined. It is seen that the P&L A/c. has been created by the aforesaid

M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Dividend Income exempt u/s.10(34): It is submitted by the assessee that the dividend income of Rs.3,25,15,594/- which is exempt u/s.10(34) has to be deducted as per Explanation I to Sec.115JB of the Act. The assessee’s claim has been examined. It is seen that the P&L A/c. has been created by the aforesaid

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

D is confirmed 17. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee , reiterating his contentions made before the ld. CIT(A) contested the action of the Ld.CIT(A) for the following reasons a) that Rule 8D was not applicable for the impugned year. b) that there was sufficient own funds available for the purpose of making the impugned investments