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

251 Section 35(2AB) 6 Capitalization of Interest to Capital Work-in- 11,29,21,996 Progress (CWIP) under Section 36(1)(iii) 7 Disallowance of Sales Promotion / Business 23,05,47,312 Promotion Expenses under Section 37 8 Disallowance of Commission Paid to Non- 23,71,88,037 Residents 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed

THE DCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. V. F. ARVIND BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013 & Cross Objection No. 204/Ahd/2013 (In Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T.(Osd), M/S. V. F. Arvind Brands Pvt. Circle-8, Vs. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Arvind Mills Premises, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan: Aaccv 2727 L (Applicant) (Responent) / Cross Objector

depreciation on Goodwill, which is not permitted under provision of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act as amended w.e.f

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

251/-. This ground is therefore dismissed. 34. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 35. The learned AR before us contended that the net interest income should only be excluded from the profit eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 36. On the other hand the learned

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

251/-. This ground is therefore dismissed. 34. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 35. The learned AR before us contended that the net interest income should only be excluded from the profit eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 36. On the other hand the learned

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

1,898,50,251 28,64,978” 19. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 20. On the other hand the Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1976 and ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

1,898,50,251 28,64,978” 19. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 20. On the other hand the Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1976 and ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

1,898,50,251 28,64,978” 19. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 20. On the other hand the Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1976 and ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

1,898,50,251 28,64,978” 19. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 20. On the other hand the Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1976 and ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

1,898,50,251 28,64,978” 19. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 20. On the other hand the Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1976 and ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

1,898,50,251 28,64,978” 19. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 20. On the other hand the Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1976 and ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other

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

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

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

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

251 III 5% of the average value of investment Rs.84,81,427 on which tax free income is received or receivable. IV Total Rs.7,10,64,678 3.4 In view of the above, AO disallowed expense of Rs. 7,10,64,678/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee

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

251 III 5% of the average value of investment Rs.84,81,427 on which tax free income is received or receivable. IV Total Rs.7,10,64,678 3.4 In view of the above, AO disallowed expense of Rs. 7,10,64,678/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee

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

251 III 5% of the average value of investment Rs.84,81,427 on which tax free income is received or receivable. IV Total Rs.7,10,64,678 3.4 In view of the above, AO disallowed expense of Rs. 7,10,64,678/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee

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

251 III 5% of the average value of investment Rs.84,81,427 on which tax free income is received or receivable. IV Total Rs.7,10,64,678 3.4 In view of the above, AO disallowed expense of Rs. 7,10,64,678/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee

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

251 III 5% of the average value of investment Rs.84,81,427 on which tax free income is received or receivable. IV Total Rs.7,10,64,678 3.4 In view of the above, AO disallowed expense of Rs. 7,10,64,678/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee