SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

disallowance u/s 57(iii) was incorrect. However Section 58(2) r w Section 40A(2) talks about disallowance of any expenditure

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

disallowance u/s 57(iii) was incorrect. However Section 58(2) r w Section 40A(2) talks about disallowance of any expenditure

VARUN SATYAPAL SINGHAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3( NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. While deleting disallowance made by the AO under section 40A(2

PIYUSHBHAI GORDHANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2016-17 Shri Piyush Gordhanbhai Patel Acit, Cir.3(1) Prop: V.G. Automobiles Vs Vadodara. N.H.No.8, Nr.Dhara Petrol Pump At Vemali Vadodara 390 024. Pan : Adzpp 9289 N

section 40A(2)(b) at the rate of 15% or 18% was excessive warranting disallowance of expenditure under section 40A

SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

disallowances of interest made under section 40A(2)(b). 3.8 The learned CIT(A), after considering the material on record

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

2,06,85,173/- 10.1 Assessing Officer observed from Form 10CCB submitted by the assessee that the assessee’s computation for eligible profits u/s 80IC included a sum of Rs.2,06,85,173/- which was the amount disallowed u/s 40a(ia). Thus, he held that, to the extent of the disallowed expenses, the profits of the eligible undertaking u/s 80IC

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

2,06,85,173/- 10.1 Assessing Officer observed from Form 10CCB submitted by the assessee that the assessee’s computation for eligible profits u/s 80IC included a sum of Rs.2,06,85,173/- which was the amount disallowed u/s 40a(ia). Thus, he held that, to the extent of the disallowed expenses, the profits of the eligible undertaking u/s 80IC

M S HOSTEL,NEW SAMA SAVLI ROAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), VADODARA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

2. Now, the allegation of learned AO that she has not filed her return of income for the relevant assessment year cannot be the basis for disallowance of expense u/s 40 of the Act. Section 37 as well as section 40A

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

disallowances of interest\nmade under section 40A(2)(b).\n3.8 The learned CIT(A), after considering the material on record

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 4,62,50,000/- holding payments made by the assessee not covered under Rule 6 DD of the I.T. Rules,1962. 16. Ground Nos. 1, 2

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 4,62,50,000/- holding payments made by the assessee not covered under Rule 6 DD of the I.T. Rules,1962. 16. Ground Nos. 1, 2

KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHUVAN METAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, onus to prove unreasonableness is on the assessing officer. While passing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. KHYATI CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 40A(2)(b) and making disallowance of Rs. 2,40,00,000/-. The appellant submits that disallowance was arbitrary

APEX HEALTH CARE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallow excess payment made to the sister concern invoking provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. I.T.A No. 547/Ahd/2023

M/S. LAXMI BACHAT SHARAFI SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2014-15

40A(2)(b) of the Act and even the show cause notice is silent about that. 16 14. Having said so, we further find that the order of the ld.Pr.CIT is liable to be set aside also for the reasons that though the assessee had canvassed that his claim of deduction under section 80P(2) qualified under sub-clause

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40A(2)(b) 6) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the action of the learned Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad ("the AO'') in making the disallowance amounting to Rs. 39,87,500/- out of the total commission paid to sister concerns by invoking the provision of section

RAMCHAND BHULCHAND RAJAI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1, , BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The penalty in the present case was levied on concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, arising from the following disallowances made by the Assessing

VIRBALA KIRITKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5 PRESENT JURISDICTION CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40A(2)(b), and, hence, no disallowance could be made on such payment. 11. In the case of Nat Steel Equipment (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai [2018] 95 taxmann.com 159 (Mumbai)/[2018] 171 ITD 482 (Mumbai)[13-06-2018], the ITAT held that where Assessing Officer made disallowance under section

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act held not disallowable]. (2) Asstt. CIT v. Alfa Rubber Inds. [2008] 172 Taxman