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

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. MARKET CREATORS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

disallowance under section 40A(2). The very scheme of Section 40A(2) does not envisage an adhoc disallowance as has been

ITO, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. HEMATO ONCOLOGY CLINIC (AHMEDABAD)P.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

ROTOMAG MOTORS & CONTROLS PVT. LTD.,,ANAND vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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 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

GANDHI SHRENIK KANTILAL,GODHARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, GODHARA

In the result, appeal ITA 1758/Ahd/2018 is allowed and appeal ITA

section 40A(2) of the Act. 8.1 However, on appeal, the learned CIT (A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 2

GANDHI SHRENIK KANTILAL,GODHARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, GODHARA

In the result, appeal ITA 1758/Ahd/2018 is allowed and appeal ITA

section 40A(2) of the Act. 8.1 However, on appeal, the learned CIT (A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PATEL ALLOY STEEL CO. PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

section 40A(2)(h) disallowance; is cited in support. L.d. DR representing Revenue prays for restoration of the entire disallowance

CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance has been made u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per provisions of said section