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

v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [(2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC)] which held that goodwill qualifies as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under clause (b) of Explanation 3 to section 32(1) of the Act. 34. The CIT(A) further referred to the statutory definition of “amalgamation” under section 2(1B) of the Act, which mandates that all properties and liabilities

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

depreciation on electric installation of Rs. 8,15,987/-. " 5) "that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the disallowance of foreign commission expenses of Rs. 57,07,6751-. " 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT-A erred in deleting the addition

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

depreciation on electric installation of Rs. 8,15,987/-. " 5) "that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the disallowance of foreign commission expenses of Rs. 57,07,6751-. " 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT-A erred in deleting the addition

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

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

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

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

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

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

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

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

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

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

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

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

36 to 38 on Page 63 & 64 of its order. Further, the same view has been taken in Para 49 for A.Y. 2011-12, Para 56 for AY 2012-13 and Para 61 for AY 2013-14. In the same order, the appeal of assessee was dismissed, which has been rectified by Hon’ble ITAT on 04.01.2021. Therefore, respectfully following

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

36(1)(iii) would cease to exist, since there would\nbe no continuing diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. In\nthat event, the disallowances made for the impugned years would not\nsurvive and shall be deleted. Conversely, if it is established that the\namounts had no business nexus and continued to remain diverted for non-\nbusiness purposes

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-8, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE SHARED SERVICES LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR SHARED SERVICES LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation 8 has no application to the facts of the present case..... Section 36

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VODAFONE SHARED SERVICES LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR SHARED SERVICES LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation 8 has no application to the facts of the present case..... Section 36

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VODAFONE SHARED SERVICES LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR SHARED SERVICES LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation 8 has no application to the facts of the present case..... Section 36

VODAFONE BUSINESS SERVICES LIMITED ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE SHARED SERVICES LIMITED),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation 8 has no application to the facts of the present case..... Section 36