TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

186]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also dismissed SLPs filed against these decisions, thereby lending finality to the proposition that earning of exempt income is a sine qua non for invoking section 14A. 94. In the instant case, the learned CIT(A) has correctly appreciated this principle and deleted the disallowance under section 14A in its entirety. This conclusion

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

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 865/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Intas The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Plot 423/P/A, Sarkhej Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Sanand, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382213 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci4722M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shah, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr & Shri Ashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 20.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dcit] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

186/- as on 31/03/2012. Thus, the interest free funds owned by the appellant were much more than the interest free advances towards CWIP. Thus, no interest bearing funds have been utilized for the purpose of CWIP advances. Even otherwise also the advances given towards CWIP were for the business purposes not for any other purposes. Further, during the year under

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

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 that all the four investee companies were dormant, and no expenditure could be said to have been incurred

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

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 that all the four investee companies were dormant, and no expenditure could be said to have been incurred

SMT. PASHIBEN PRAJAPATI FAMILY TRUST (DISC),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the manner as indicated above

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Has In-Turn Arisen From The Intimation Dated 07.12.2022 Issued By Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S.154(Cpc/2122/U5/ 314311772) Of The Act.

Section 80-C of Rs.1,50,000 under chapter VI-A which may be allowed in the interest of justice and return income may be accepted. 2. Both Lower Authorities has erred in law and on facts while processing the return as well as while passing the order under S.250 erred in for not granting TDS Credit shown

SANDEEPKUMAR MITHULAL MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1002/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta, I.T.O., 7, Rajasthan Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Opp. Meghdoot Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad. Sahibaug, Ahmedabad.

186 held as under : ". . .what is really indicated in the various decisions cited and in section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would be required to explain why the appeal and/or application could not be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and explain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

TDS on such expenditure, therefore the same cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the said expenditure as business expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. 25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.DRP who has confirmed the order of the AO. 26. Being aggrieved by the order

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

186/- at 12.59%. The Assessing Officer observed that with respect to the unsecured loan taken by the assessee, the assessee was called for the details and further mentions that the letter of Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Ahmedabad, contained investigation report with respect to sharing of information of the beneficiaries who have obtained accommodation entries from Shri Praveen Kumar

M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

186/- at 12.59%. The Assessing Officer observed that with respect to the unsecured loan taken by the assessee, the assessee was called for the details and further mentions that the letter of Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Ahmedabad, contained investigation report with respect to sharing of information of the beneficiaries who have obtained accommodation entries from Shri Praveen Kumar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 133(6) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A), after an elaborate examination of facts and documentary evidence, deleted the addition by recording detailed factual findings as under:- “6.1 The only substantial ground

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

TDS and TCS of Rs 9,02,68,127/- in the tax computation even though duly granted under an intimation processed u/s 143(1) by the CPC. 12. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in not allowing credit for relief claimed u/s 90 of Rs. 37,46,819/-. 13. That the learned Assessing Officer erred

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GHCL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the view taken

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the view taken