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 as made by ITA Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 [Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah vs. DCIT] A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 - 10 – the Revenue under Section 58(2) read with Section 40A(2)(b

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 as made by ITA Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 [Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah vs. DCIT] A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 - 10 – the Revenue under Section 58(2) read with Section 40A(2)(b

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

disallowances made under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Considering the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and the Evidence

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

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

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

disallowed under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, which was further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. It was further

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

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

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

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)(b) of the Act. However keeping the inflation trend in mind, the Assessing Officer has held that increase of 10% in the remuneration every year is reasonable and justified. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance

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

B it becomes clear that any industrial undertaking, which becomes eligible on satisfying sub-section(2), would be entitled to deduction under sub-section (1) only to the extent of profits derived from such industrial undertaking after specified date(s). Hence, apart from eligibility, sub-section (1) purports to restrict the quantum of deduction to a specified percentage of profits

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

B it becomes clear that any industrial undertaking, which becomes eligible on satisfying sub-section(2), would be entitled to deduction under sub-section (1) only to the extent of profits derived from such industrial undertaking after specified date(s). Hence, apart from eligibility, sub-section (1) purports to restrict the quantum of deduction to a specified percentage of profits

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

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)(b) of the Act. At the outset we note that the AO has made the disallowance of the rent

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)(b) of the Act. At the outset we note that the AO has made the disallowance of the rent

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

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)

section 40A(2) was not valid. 6. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents and the Lower Authorities failed to make comparative study of the job work charges with any third party, therefore A.O. is not correct in I.T.A No. 547/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 8 Apex Health Care Ltd. vs. DCIT making disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) was correctly made by the Assessing Officer after it was found that the payments made by the Assessee to the extent of Rs. 4,62,50,000/- were not covered under rule 6 DD of I.T. Rules, 1962 and hence, the provisions of section 40A(3) were directly applicable. (b) While doing so, the learned