THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

3. Ground No.1relates to deletion of disallowance of Rs.25,46,06,987/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and Rs.3,26,02,919/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain (STCG). 4. The brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Transmission Towers and Job work of Engineering

SHITAL VIPULKUMAR DHOLAKIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 143(3) r.w.s.144B of\nthe Act vide order dated 22.12.2022, determining total income at\nRs.1,46,25,25,370/- after making a disallowance of Rs.1,45

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

3,99,455.89 42. It is the consistent case of the assessee that these testing services were rendered and utilized wholly outside India for the purpose of meeting export compliance norms of foreign jurisdictions, and therefore, in view of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, the income does not accrue or arise in India and is not chargeable

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Disallowance u/s 14A – Rs. 8,07,84,146 as discussed Book Profit u/s. 115JB Rs. 2011,70,46,681 Tax @ 18.5% Rs. 372,16,53,636 9. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,04,62,99,990/- under Section 143C(B) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act under the normal provision

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

3,65,68,91,720 Proportionate Interest Disallowance (B × C) ÷ A Amount Disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 11,29,21,996 ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 43 80. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the disallowance was unjustified and that it had substantial interest-free funds available throughout the year, far in excess of the average CWIP balance

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

3,65,68,91,720 Proportionate Interest Disallowance (B × C) ÷ A Amount Disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 11,29,21,996 ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 43 80. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the disallowance was unjustified and that it had substantial interest-free funds available throughout the year, far in excess of the average CWIP balance

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

45,72,000/- on account of disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. At the outset ld. AR submitted that this ground relates to the disallowance under section 14A of the Act due to which book profit u/s 115JB was enhanced by ld. Assessing Officer and the fate of this ground depends on the decision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) (1) AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 144C(3) of the Act, adopted the TPO’s findings and passed an assessment order determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.80,85,45,535/-, after making the following adjustments: and CO No.10/Ahd/2024 (By Assessee) The Asstt.CIT vs. Inductotherm (India) Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year:2016-17 3 - Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.2,67,13,481/-. - Disallowance

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

45,72,000/- on account of disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. At the outset ld. AR submitted that this ground relates to the disallowance under section 14A of the Act due to which book profit u/s ITA Nos.139&178/Ahd/2023 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT Asst.Year– 2018-19 115JB was enhanced

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

45,72,000/- on account of disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. At the outset ld. AR submitted that this ground relates to the disallowance under section 14A of the Act due to which book profit u/s ITA Nos.139&178/Ahd/2023 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT Asst.Year– 2018-19 115JB was enhanced

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs.35,11,35,800/- u/s.14A r.w.r 8D without appreciating that the appellant has more its own interest funds which are far in excess of investment made. 4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs.35,11,35,800/- u/s.14A r.w.r 8D without appreciating that the appellant has more its own interest funds which are far in excess of investment made. 4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs.35,11,35,800/- u/s.14A r.w.r 8D without appreciating that the appellant has more its own interest funds which are far in excess of investment made. 4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs.35,11,35,800/- u/s.14A r.w.r 8D without appreciating that the appellant has more its own interest funds which are far in excess of investment made. 4. Without prejudice to the above, quantification of disallowance is excessive

M/S. PIPRANI EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Piprani Equipment P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-3(1)(2) Ff-4, Amar Complex Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Amin Equipments P.Ltd. Sarkhej Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aagcp 6503 L

disallowance made under section 40(3) in respect of cash 2 purchase of old vehicles from unknown sellers for business of dealing of old vehicles, equipment’s and machineries.” 3. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of used vehicles and construction equipments/machineries and old vehicles were

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

45. In ground no. 2, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: 2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed the deduction u/s 80IAB after increasing the amount of deduction by the amount of disallowance u/s 14A. 46. Learned representatives fairly agree that while this relief was granted by the learned

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

45. In ground no. 2, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: 2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed the deduction u/s 80IAB after increasing the amount of deduction by the amount of disallowance u/s 14A. 46. Learned representatives fairly agree that while this relief was granted by the learned

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

Appeal is dismissed

section 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle and no party appearing before the Tribunal should suffered on account of the mistake committed by the Tribunal and that power of rectification of the Tribunal is granted to see that no prejudice is caused to either of the parties by the decision of the Tribunal based on the mistake apparent