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

68,82,683/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- “3.3. I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submission filed by the appellant. It is noticed that Assessing Officer has made disallowance by invoking provisions of section 14A

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

68,82,683/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- “3.3. I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submission filed by the appellant. It is noticed that Assessing Officer has made disallowance by invoking provisions of section 14A

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

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

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

14A of the Act. We allow this ground of appeal in both the years and delete the additions. 25. Ground No.3 in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 is as under: Assessment Year 2012-13 ITA No.805 and 2744/Ahd/2017 Ground no.3: The ld.DRP has erred in making addition of Rs.2,58,962 to the total income, comprising

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

14A of the Act. We allow this ground of appeal in both the years and delete the additions. 25. Ground No.3 in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 is as under: Assessment Year 2012-13 ITA No.805 and 2744/Ahd/2017 Ground no.3: The ld.DRP has erred in making addition of Rs.2,58,962 to the total income, comprising

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 14A by the Finance (Amendment) Act, 2001 but also made it retrospective, i.e., 1962 when the Income Tax Act itself came into force. The aforesaid intent was expressed loudly and clearly in the Memorandum I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 20 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT explaining the provisions

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 14A by the Finance (Amendment) Act, 2001 but also made it retrospective, i.e., 1962 when the Income Tax Act itself came into force. The aforesaid intent was expressed loudly and clearly in the Memorandum I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 20 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT explaining the provisions

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 14A by the Finance (Amendment) Act, 2001 but also made it retrospective, i.e., 1962 when the Income Tax Act itself came into force. The aforesaid intent was expressed loudly and clearly in the Memorandum I.T.A No. 2471 & 2853/Ahd/2017 & Ors. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 20 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. . vs. DCIT explaining the provisions

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

14A while computing the book profit of the assessee- company under Section 115JB of the Act, the learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act as computed by the Assessing Officer being negative, the MAT provision was held to be not applicable in the case of the assessee

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

14A while computing the book profit of the assessee- company under Section 115JB of the Act, the learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act as computed by the Assessing Officer being negative, the MAT provision was held to be not applicable in the case of the assessee

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

14A while computing the book profit of the assessee- company under Section 115JB of the Act, the learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act as computed by the Assessing Officer being negative, the MAT provision was held to be not applicable in the case of the assessee

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

14A while computing the book profit of the assessee- company under Section 115JB of the Act, the learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act as computed by the Assessing Officer being negative, the MAT provision was held to be not applicable in the case of the assessee

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

68,995/-\nTotal Own Funds (a + b)\n19,52,09,835/-\n20,76,83,195/-\n18. It was thus urged that, in view of the availability of substantial own\nfunds and the binding judicial precedents, the disallowance sustained by\nthe CIT(A) under section 14A

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

68,995/-\nTotal Own Funds (a + b)\n19,52,09,835/-\n20,76,83,195/-\n18.\nIt was thus urged that, in view of the availability of substantial own\nfunds and the binding judicial precedents, the disallowance sustained by\nthe CIT(A) under section 14A

M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE JT.CIT.,GNR RANGE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,09,656/ and simultaneously has incurred interest cost of Rs.11,01,92,468/- on the loans during the year. Accordingly the AO of the view that the expenditure incurred in relation to exempted income in the form of interest expenses and administrative expenses need to be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, an explanation was sought

M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,09,656/ and simultaneously has incurred interest cost of Rs.11,01,92,468/- on the loans during the year. Accordingly the AO of the view that the expenditure incurred in relation to exempted income in the form of interest expenses and administrative expenses need to be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, an explanation was sought

THE ACIT,GNR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,09,656/ and simultaneously has incurred interest cost of Rs.11,01,92,468/- on the loans during the year. Accordingly the AO of the view that the expenditure incurred in relation to exempted income in the form of interest expenses and administrative expenses need to be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, an explanation was sought