ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

1) of the Act. The CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss to the extent of Rs.2,78,31,758/- incurred in connection with the purchase of capital goods from overseas suppliers. It was held that such loss, being directly relatable to acquisition of capital assets, was required to be capitalised under section 43A

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,08,61,686/- being gain on account of foreign exchange fluctuation on the last day of the year on the outstanding foreign currency loan (FCCB) which was utilized for investment in subsidiary. The assessee had outstanding FCCB loan of Rs. 151.14 crores as at the end of the year i.e. on 31.03.2015 and following

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET (DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

section 145(2) of the Act. Thus, while the assessee is at liberty to follow it in its books, for Income Tax purposes it ought to have added back the ITA Nos.1470, 1792 & 2045/Ahd/2018 (D) ITA No. 1398/Ahd/18, CO Nos. 88&89/Ahd/2019 (A) Assessee : Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Ltd. AYs : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 10 contingent liability

ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

section 145(2) of the Act. Thus, while the assessee is at liberty to follow it in its books, for Income Tax purposes it ought to have added back the ITA Nos.1470, 1792 & 2045/Ahd/2018 (D) ITA No. 1398/Ahd/18, CO Nos. 88&89/Ahd/2019 (A) Assessee : Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Ltd. AYs : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 10 contingent liability

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

section 145(2) of the Act. Thus, while the assessee is at liberty to follow it in its books, for Income Tax purposes it ought to have added back the ITA Nos.1470, 1792 & 2045/Ahd/2018 (D) ITA No. 1398/Ahd/18, CO Nos. 88&89/Ahd/2019 (A) Assessee : Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Ltd. AYs : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 10 contingent liability

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

section 145(2) of the Act. Thus, while the assessee is at liberty to follow it in its books, for Income Tax purposes it ought to have added back the ITA Nos.1470, 1792 & 2045/Ahd/2018 (D) ITA No. 1398/Ahd/18, CO Nos. 88&89/Ahd/2019 (A) Assessee : Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Ltd. AYs : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 10 contingent liability

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

1 to 63 and submitted that there is no denial to change the method of declaring income under normal provisions of the Act viz a viz under presumption basis as per the provisions of section 44 BB of the Act. 29.1 The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee cannot claim the benefit for the deduction specified under section

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

1 to 63 and submitted that there is no denial to change the method of declaring income under normal provisions of the Act viz a viz under presumption basis as per the provisions of section 44 BB of the Act. 29.1 The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee cannot claim the benefit for the deduction specified under section

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

1 to 63 and submitted that there is no denial to change the method of declaring income under normal provisions of the Act viz a viz under presumption basis as per the provisions of section 44 BB of the Act. 29.1 The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee cannot claim the benefit for the deduction specified under section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal ITAs 2786/Ahd/2014, 1416/Ahd/2018, and 1417/Ahd/2018 filed by revenue are dismissed and appeal ITA No

1,42,083/- in respect of expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that investment was made out of surplus and internal accrual available with the company and no borrowed fund was used. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the contention of the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to exempt income

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

disallowance , and consequently deduction under section 80IA(4) will also go up . The ld. Sr. DR, Shri Chetram Meena submitted that this contention raised by the ld. Senior Advocate is not raised in the grounds of CO filed by the assessee with ITAT , that the amount added to the income of the assessee will lead to the increase in deduction

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

disallowance , and consequently deduction under section 80IA(4) will also go up . The ld. Sr. DR, Shri Chetram Meena submitted that this contention raised by the ld. Senior Advocate is not raised in the grounds of CO filed by the assessee with ITAT , that the amount added to the income of the assessee will lead to the increase in deduction

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

disallowance , and consequently deduction under section 80IA(4) will also go up . The ld. Sr. DR, Shri Chetram Meena submitted that this contention raised by the ld. Senior Advocate is not raised in the grounds of CO filed by the assessee with ITAT , that the amount added to the income of the assessee will lead to the increase in deduction

INTAS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, R-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

1)(iii) of the Act. About depreciation this issue does not arise in the present assessment year. 22. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that the assessee did not furnish any evidence to prove that any amount of interest was capitalized to CWIP with supporting

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that, therefore, he had grossly erred not only in upholding the impugned disallowance on the ground that he found no fault with the Assessing Officer making the impugned disallowance in conformity with the aforesaid Instruction but further, in not deciding the appellant's ground using his own discretion in the matter

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that, therefore, he had grossly erred not only in upholding the impugned disallowance on the ground that he found no fault with the Assessing Officer making the impugned disallowance in conformity with the aforesaid Instruction but further, in not deciding the appellant's ground using his own discretion in the matter

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that, therefore, he had grossly erred not only in upholding the impugned disallowance on the ground that he found no fault with the Assessing Officer making the impugned disallowance in conformity with the aforesaid Instruction but further, in not deciding the appellant's ground using his own discretion in the matter

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that, therefore, he had grossly erred not only in upholding the impugned disallowance on the ground that he found no fault with the Assessing Officer making the impugned disallowance in conformity with the aforesaid Instruction but further, in not deciding the appellant's ground using his own discretion in the matter

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that, therefore, he had grossly erred not only in upholding the impugned disallowance on the ground that he found no fault with the Assessing Officer making the impugned disallowance in conformity with the aforesaid Instruction but further, in not deciding the appellant's ground using his own discretion in the matter