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

90. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s submission and deleted the disallowance of Rs.8,70,747/- made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. He held that in the absence of any exempt income, the disallowance was ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 47 not sustainable in law, particularly in light of the binding precedents cited. The CIT(A) also noted

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

90. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s submission and deleted the disallowance of Rs.8,70,747/- made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. He held that in the absence of any exempt income, the disallowance was ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 47 not sustainable in law, particularly in light of the binding precedents cited. The CIT(A) also noted

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

Appeal is dismissed

section 28 also. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are on different facts. The advances were given in those cases for running of the business whereas in the case of appellant; the advance was given for new project which did not commence. Therefore assessing officer is justified in disallowing the claim. The disallowance made is therefore confirmed. 26. Before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

90,620/- was disallowed and added to the total income. In addition, with respect to soil filling expenses of Rs.78,82,000/-, the Assessing Officer made a separate disallowance treating the same as capital in nature. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A) restricted this disallowance to Rs.7,88,200/- on the ground of lack of supporting documentation, against which

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowances of claim under section 35D of the Act. 88. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its crossobjection for the AY 2015-16 are identical to the objection raised by the it in CO No. 81/AHD/2020 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in CONo. 81/AHD/2020 shall also be applicable

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowances of claim under section 35D of the Act. 88. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its crossobjection for the AY 2015-16 are identical to the objection raised by the it in CO No. 81/AHD/2020 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in CONo. 81/AHD/2020 shall also be applicable

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowances of claim under section 35D of the Act. 88. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its crossobjection for the AY 2015-16 are identical to the objection raised by the it in CO No. 81/AHD/2020 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in CONo. 81/AHD/2020 shall also be applicable

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowances of claim under section 35D of the Act. 88. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its crossobjection for the AY 2015-16 are identical to the objection raised by the it in CO No. 81/AHD/2020 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in CONo. 81/AHD/2020 shall also be applicable

GOYAL & CO. (CONST.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD

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

disallowance can be made under section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rules with respect to 2 partnership firms and the investment in shares. The details of such partnership firms and investment in the company stand as under: Working for average Investment is as under: Particulars 31.03.2013 31.03.2012 Investment in firms from where no interest

GOYAL & CO. (CONST.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD

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

disallowance can be made under section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rules with respect to 2 partnership firms and the investment in shares. The details of such partnership firms and investment in the company stand as under: Working for average Investment is as under: Particulars 31.03.2013 31.03.2012 Investment in firms from where no interest

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 37 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, to cover both "expenses incurred" as well as an amount which is really a "loss" EVEN THOUGH SUCH AMOUNT HAS NOT GONE OUT FROM THE POCKET OF THE ASSESSEE. Profits and gains of the previous year are required to be computed in accordance with the relevant accounting standard. On general principles

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 37 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, to cover both "expenses incurred" as well as an amount which is really a "loss" EVEN THOUGH SUCH AMOUNT HAS NOT GONE OUT FROM THE POCKET OF THE ASSESSEE. Profits and gains of the previous year are required to be computed in accordance with the relevant accounting standard. On general principles

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 37 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, to cover both "expenses incurred" as well as an amount which is really a "loss" EVEN THOUGH SUCH AMOUNT HAS NOT GONE OUT FROM THE POCKET OF THE ASSESSEE. Profits and gains of the previous year are required to be computed in accordance with the relevant accounting standard. On general principles

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 37 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, to cover both "expenses incurred" as well as an amount which is really a "loss" EVEN THOUGH SUCH AMOUNT HAS NOT GONE OUT FROM THE POCKET OF THE ASSESSEE. Profits and gains of the previous year are required to be computed in accordance with the relevant accounting standard. On general principles

D.B. CORP. LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the cross appeals of revenue and the assesee are dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is warranted where no exempt income has been earned during a particular year. Illustratively, reliance can be placed on the following judicial precedents: CIT v Hiren Aluminium Ltd [Tax Appeal No. 171 Oof 2010] [GUJ]; CIT v Lakhani Marketing [ ITA No. 970 of 2008] [P&H] CIT v Shivam Motors

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. D.B. CORP. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the cross appeals of revenue and the assesee are dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is warranted where no exempt income has been earned during a particular year. Illustratively, reliance can be placed on the following judicial precedents: CIT v Hiren Aluminium Ltd [Tax Appeal No. 171 Oof 2010] [GUJ]; CIT v Lakhani Marketing [ ITA No. 970 of 2008] [P&H] CIT v Shivam Motors

TORRENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TORRENT INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 14A of the Act. 17. The case of the Ld. PCIT is that the assessment records on verification revealed that the assessee had disallowed an amount of Rs. 64,82,90