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

1 Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest 15,18,41,720 on advances to AEs 2 Disallowance of 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

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

disallowance of business promotion expenses under section 37(1) of the Act. 4. The facts are in brief that the assessee is a public company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs & Pharmaceuticals. During the year, the assesse has claimed certain expenditures under the head business promotions, detailed as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount Claimed as expenditure 1

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

disallowance of business promotion expenses under section 37(1) of the Act. 4. The facts are in brief that the assessee is a public company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs & Pharmaceuticals. During the year, the assesse has claimed certain expenditures under the head business promotions, detailed as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount Claimed as expenditure 1

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDO COLCHEM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2012-13 with the following grounds: “1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

disallowance under section 14A to the book profit computed under section 115JB, we find such adjustment to be legally untenable. Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

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

1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication. 16. In ground no. 2, the assessee-appellant has raised the following grievances:- 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of Rs.30,40,260/- by invoking the provisions of Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication. 16. In ground no. 2, the assessee-appellant has raised the following grievances:- 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of Rs.30,40,260/- by invoking the provisions of Section

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication. 16. In ground no. 2, the assessee-appellant has raised the following grievances:- 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of Rs.30,40,260/- by invoking the provisions of Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication. 16. In ground no. 2, the assessee-appellant has raised the following grievances:- 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of Rs.30,40,260/- by invoking the provisions of Section

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication. 16. In ground no. 2, the assessee-appellant has raised the following grievances:- 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of Rs.30,40,260/- by invoking the provisions of Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication. 16. In ground no. 2, the assessee-appellant has raised the following grievances:- 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of Rs.30,40,260/- by invoking the provisions of Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

2 to Section 195(1) of the Act, both by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. 15. The issue raised in this case has been the subject matter of the decision, in the recent case, CIT v. Kikani Exports (P.) Ltd. [2014] 369 ITR 96/[2015] 232 Taxman 255/49 taxmann.com 601 (Mad.) wherein the contention

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

2 to Section 195(1) of the Act, both by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. 15. The issue raised in this case has been the subject matter of the decision, in the recent case, CIT v. Kikani Exports (P.) Ltd. [2014] 369 ITR 96/[2015] 232 Taxman 255/49 taxmann.com 601 (Mad.) wherein the contention

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) for determining the amount disallowable would require obliteration, which is not possible. The expression 'in relation to ' has been used in various sections apart from section 14A, such as sections 36(1

KARNAVATI ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has raised the following grievance: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition on account of commission of Rs.12,09,143/- ignoring fact that liability for commission crystallise during the year

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDO COLCHEM PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

1. By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the learned CIT(A)’s order dated 15th May 2017, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The Assessing Officer has raised following grievance:- “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax From The Payments Made To M/S. Urja International, Usa Which Proves That The

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The cross-objection filed by the assessee is not pressed and accordingly dismissed summarily. 3. So far as the appeal filed by the Revenue is concerned, the grievances of the Assessing Officer are as follows:- “1 On the facts and circumstances

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in issuing a notice u/s 143(2

M/S. INOX INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The grievances raised by the assessee, are as follows:- “1. The learned Principal Commissioner of the Income Tax-1, Baroda ("the CIT") erred in fact and in law in revising the assessment by invoking powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") which was completed