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

14A of the Act in the book profits under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act.” 5. Ground No. 1 – Levy of capital gains under section 45 of the Act considering demerger of the treasury undertaking as non- qualifying demerger; Ground No. 2 – Levy of Dividend Distribution Tax 5.1 The facts relating to this issue are that

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

section 14A of the Act.” ITA No.285/Ahd/2020 with C.O No.81/Ahd/2020 and 5 others A.Y. 2013-14 & Ors. 18 23.7 Givenabove, we hold that the disallowances made under the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the IT Rules, cannot be applied to the provision of Sec. 115JB of the Act as per the direction of the Hon'ble Calcutta

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

section 14A of the Act.” ITA No.285/Ahd/2020 with C.O No.81/Ahd/2020 and 5 others A.Y. 2013-14 & Ors. 18 23.7 Givenabove, we hold that the disallowances made under the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the IT Rules, cannot be applied to the provision of Sec. 115JB of the Act as per the direction of the Hon'ble Calcutta

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

section 14A of the Act.” ITA No.285/Ahd/2020 with C.O No.81/Ahd/2020 and 5 others A.Y. 2013-14 & Ors. 18 23.7 Givenabove, we hold that the disallowances made under the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the IT Rules, cannot be applied to the provision of Sec. 115JB of the Act as per the direction of the Hon'ble Calcutta

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

section 14A of the Act.” ITA No.285/Ahd/2020 with C.O No.81/Ahd/2020 and 5 others A.Y. 2013-14 & Ors. 18 23.7 Givenabove, we hold that the disallowances made under the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the IT Rules, cannot be applied to the provision of Sec. 115JB of the Act as per the direction of the Hon'ble Calcutta

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

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

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 17,47,497 income/no profit has been

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

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

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 17,47,497 income/no profit has been

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

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

section 14A of the Act only net interest expenses after adjusting with interest income should be considered. In the given case, the interest income exceeds expenses. Therefore, the AO was not justified in making disallowances on account of interest expenses. 47.8 In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned

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

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 DCITGANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, 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 LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ADDL.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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Submission of DB Corp before your Honour’s: 2.1. Ground on disallowance of Rs. 68,82,683/- under section 14A