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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

b). The Assessing Officer has made disallowance of Rs.4,22,77,759/- u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the income -tax Rule, 1962 and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated in the assessment order. The appellant had preferred appeal against the assessment order before the CIT (A)-II, Vadodara and further the appellant and revenue

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

b). The Assessing Officer has made disallowance of Rs.4,22,77,759/- u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the income -tax Rule, 1962 and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated in the assessment order. The appellant had preferred appeal against the assessment order before the CIT (A)-II, Vadodara and further the appellant and revenue

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1) NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nirma Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-380 009 Circle-3(1)(1), Pan : Aaacn 5350 K Ahmedabad-380009 अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 10.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows:-

disallowed purely on the ground that the amendment to section 244A sub- section (a) & (aa) of the Act was made w.e.f. 01.06.2016 since the present appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore, the amended provisions of section 244A of the Act could not be made applicable for the year under appeal. 9. We have perused the judgement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

b). The Assessing Officer has made disallowance of Rs.4,22,77,759/- u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the income -tax Rule, 1962 and penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) had also been initiated in the assessment order. The appellant had preferred appeal against the assessment order before the CIT (A)-II, Vadodara and further the appellant and revenue preferred appeal

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that require mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that require mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that require mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that require mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that require mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that require mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that require mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that require mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that require mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years