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

Depreciation on Goodwill 2,27,92,50,000 3 Disallowance due to Allocation of Common 10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D 8,70,747

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:-

depreciation on goodwill and granting consequential relief. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 6 to 12 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Ground No. 13 – Allocation of Common Expenses while Computing Deduction under Sections 80-IC, 80-IE & 10AA 8. This ground relates to deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of allocation of common/indirect expenses to the eligible units

GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri S. S. Godara.

Section 147 explanation 3 inserted by the Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1989. The assessee does not appear to have pressed its challenge to depreciation disallowance of Rs.18,006/-. The same accordingly stood dismissed for want of challenge. The CIT(A) thereafter accepted assessee’s challenge to depreciation disallowance of Rs.1

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

747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that

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

747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that

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

747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that

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

747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that

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

747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that

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

747/-, being contribution to Presanna Trust made by the assessee as an employer, with the observation that this contribution was not shown to have been made for setting up or formation of the aforesaid trust, without appreciating that section 40A(9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that

THE ACIT- CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. L.K. INDIA PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No.104/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 2 ACIT vs. M/s. L.K. India Pvt. Ltd. 2. The revenue has raised following ground of appeal:- “1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI GOVIND JAIRAMDAS CHANGLANI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

depreciation and fixed assets and put to use in the second half of the previous year. I.T.A No. 183/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 6 ACIT Vs. Shri Govind Jairamdas Changlani 9. The A.O. has not doubted the identity in all the cases and doubted the creditworthiness in many cases and in few cases also, he doubted the genuineness

GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2390/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T, Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar Circle, Vs. 6Th Floor, Block No.11, Gandhinagar Udyog Bhavan, Sector 11, Gandhinagar-382011. Pan: Aaacg5304Q आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2319/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012

Section 43B of the Act on the basis of payments made Disallowance u/s 43B in earlier years now written Back 1,103,934,501 Depreciation as per Income Tax Act 3,483,803 VRS Expenditure (l/5th) 6,912,699 Premium on pre-payment Excess provision written back Preliminary Expenditure u/s. 35D [1 /10th] 797,000 ITA nos.2390/Ahd/2014 & other Asstt. Year

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4),, VADODARA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA,, VADODARA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

Section 250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

THE ITO, WARD-2(4),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

Section 250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

Section 250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, BARODA CIR- 4,, BARODA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 10B of the Act of Rs. 7,14,80,242 as claimed by the Appellant in respect of the profits earned by its Chennai unit. 2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case the AO following the directions of the DRP has erred in holding that the Chennai unit of your appellant is not carrying on any manufacturing

SHRI ALTAFHUSEN MAHEMUDUL HASAN SIDDIKI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

depreciation on such vehicle. ITA Nos.577/Ahd/2012 & ITANo.969/Ahd/2015 Altafhusen M. Siddiki For AY 2008-09 & 2010-11 4 5. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.19,515/- being 10% of telephone expenses as personal use. 6. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts

SHRI ALTAFHUSEN M. SIDDIKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

depreciation on such vehicle. ITA Nos.577/Ahd/2012 & ITANo.969/Ahd/2015 Altafhusen M. Siddiki For AY 2008-09 & 2010-11 4 5. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.19,515/- being 10% of telephone expenses as personal use. 6. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts