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

144C of the Act, vide assessment order dated 28.01.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.430,72,97,310/-. The AO made following additions/disallowances: ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 3 Sr. Particulars of Addition/Disallowance Amount (Rs.) No. 1 Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest 15,18,41,720 on advances to AEs 2 Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill

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

144C of the Act, vide assessment order dated 28.01.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.430,72,97,310/-. The AO made following additions/disallowances: ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 3 Sr. Particulars of Addition/Disallowance Amount (Rs.) No. 1 Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest 15,18,41,720 on advances to AEs 2 Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

c) of the IT. Act in respect of each of the additions made by him in the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s. 254. The appellant prays that leave may be granted to add, amend or alter any of the grounds at any time before the final hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts in relation

SUZUKI MOTOR GUJARAT PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDANAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144C and 144B of the Act holding the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directing the assessing officer to pass a fresh assessment order after re-computing claim allowable related to general depreciation. 1.2. That the PCIT erred on facts and in law in exercising revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act without

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. These factual aspects were not disputed by the Ld. DR in the present Assessment Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. These factual aspects were not disputed by the Ld. DR in the present Assessment Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. These factual aspects were not disputed by the Ld. DR in the present Assessment Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

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.

144C of the Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. ITA No.2030/Ahd/2016 and 3 others A.Y. 2011-12 2 First we take ITA No. 2035/Ahd/2016, an appeal by the assessee for the AY 2011-12 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

144C(5) The DRP procedure can only be initiated by an assessee objecting to the draft assessment order. This would enable correction in the proposed order (draft assessment order) before a final assessment order is passed. Therefore, we are of the view that in the present facts this issue could be agitated before and rectified

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

144C passed by the Assessing Officer, the Appellant wishes to raise the following Grounds of Appeal for the kind adjudication of the Hon'ble ITAT: 1. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making upward adjustments on international transactions under the provisions relating to Transfer Pricing in respect of the following three issues: a. Addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

depreciation for Rs. 8,82,682/- only. 20. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before learned CIT (A) and reiterated its contention as made during assessment proceeding. 21. However, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowances of repair and maintenance expenses to the extent of Rs. 35,13,250/- in part by observing as under: “18.2. I have carefully considered

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

depreciation for Rs. 8,82,682/- only. 20. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before learned CIT (A) and reiterated its contention as made during assessment proceeding. 21. However, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowances of repair and maintenance expenses to the extent of Rs. 35,13,250/- in part by observing as under: “18.2. I have carefully considered

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

depreciation for Rs. 8,82,682/- only. 20. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before learned CIT (A) and reiterated its contention as made during assessment proceeding. 21. However, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowances of repair and maintenance expenses to the extent of Rs. 35,13,250/- in part by observing as under: “18.2. I have carefully considered

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

depreciation for Rs. 8,82,682/- only. 20. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before learned CIT (A) and reiterated its contention as made during assessment proceeding. 21. However, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowances of repair and maintenance expenses to the extent of Rs. 35,13,250/- in part by observing as under: “18.2. I have carefully considered

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ADD./JT. DCIT/ITO NATONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Schneider Electric Infrastructure D.C.I.T, Limited, Vs Circle-2(1)(1), Milestone 87, Vadodara Halol Vadodara. Highway, Village Kotambi, Po Jaroad, Vadodara-391510 Pan : Aapcs 6078 Q

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed to the extent it confirms the additions / disallowances made in the assessment order. 2. That the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") ignored the judicial pronouncements and erred in dismissing the grounds of objections raised by the Schneider Electric Infrastructure

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

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

144C(3) & 144B of the Income Tax on 29-05-2021 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and none of the conditions as envisaged under Section 263 are fulfilled. 2. Ground No. 2 Issue of claim of deduction under Section 32AC of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue

M/S. TBEA SHENYANG TRASFORMER GROPUP COMPANY LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAX.,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 581/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Tbea Shenyang Deputy Commissioner Of Transformer Group Income Tax Vs. Company Limited International Taxation, National Highway No.-8, Vadodara Villae : Miyagam, Karja, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct4557F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Arpit Jain, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit. Dr 24/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025 O R D E R Per Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Am:

6 – terms relating to the same activity entered into by TBEA with PGCIL the project office ought to have earned gross profit of Rs.5,99,76,050/- from such activity. He noted from the agreement that the entire transportation work was to be completed during the F.Y. 2011-12 pertaining to the impugned assessment year before

M/S. ATUL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee is in the business of manufacturing and sale of range of chemicals like dyes, agro chemicals, bulk drugs, commodity chemicals and intermediates. Assessment for the impugned year was framed by incorporating IT(TP)A No.446/Ahd/2015 2 • the Transfer Pricing

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)

144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 392/Ahd/2023 [Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. That the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has erred