ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

5. 1744/Ahd/2019 2016-17 By Assessee By Revenue Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR & Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 14/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R ITA Nos.960/Ahd/2016, 1186/Ahd/2016, 2275/Ahd/2017, 2276/Ahd/2017

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

5. 1744/Ahd/2019 2016-17 By Assessee By Revenue Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR & Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 14/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R ITA Nos.960/Ahd/2016, 1186/Ahd/2016, 2275/Ahd/2017, 2276/Ahd/2017

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

5. 1744/Ahd/2019 2016-17 By Assessee By Revenue Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR & Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 14/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R ITA Nos.960/Ahd/2016, 1186/Ahd/2016, 2275/Ahd/2017, 2276/Ahd/2017

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

184 (b) Export benefits 3,72,14,846 (c) Insurance Income 8,418 (d) Government Grant 3,41,469 (e) Interest Income 23,106 Total 3,85,28,023 ITA.Nos.2365/Ahd/2018&5 others A.Y.2013-14 3 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's action in further

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowances under section 40(a)(i) by noting that as per section 5(2)(b) the all income of non-resident that accrue or arise in India is taxable in India and in his view, income of non-resident agents accrued/arose in India under section 9(1)(i) of the Act as right to commission arose in India

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowances under section 40(a)(i) by noting that as per section 5(2)(b) the all income of non-resident that accrue or arise in India is taxable in India and in his view, income of non-resident agents accrued/arose in India under section 9(1)(i) of the Act as right to commission arose in India

SHREEJI DEVELOPERS,VADODARA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT AT VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

disallowed to the firm, whereas, in the\npresent case, the interest has already been duly offered to tax by the\npartners in their respective returns for the year under consideration.\n7. The learned PCIT has erred in fact and in law in not dropping the\nproceedings initiated under Section 263, despite the fact that the\nconditions under Section 184(5

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed suo- motu in the revised return / -.statement of income in view of Explanation 4 to S. 40(b) and accordingly the profits of the business were increased to that extent. However, the AO, relying on past assessments in the case of SPI, disallowed the same. In view of the fact that the appellant has already added back this amount

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IB, the facts of the issues in hand are identical to the facts decided by the tribunal in assessee's own case dated 11.06.210 in ITA No 184(Asr)/2009for the assessment year 2005-06. Following the same, the ground No 5&6 of the assessee are dismissed." 24. Following the orders of the decisions

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IB, the facts of the issues in hand are identical to the facts decided by the tribunal in assessee's own case dated 11.06.210 in ITA No 184(Asr)/2009for the assessment year 2005-06. Following the same, the ground No 5&6 of the assessee are dismissed." 24. Following the orders of the decisions

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

disallowed under Section 14A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue’s Appeal against the order of the Tribunal in M/s. Essar Teleholdings (supra) was dismissed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.438 of 2012 rendered on 7th August, 2014. In view of the above

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

disallowed under Section 14A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue’s Appeal against the order of the Tribunal in M/s. Essar Teleholdings (supra) was dismissed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.438 of 2012 rendered on 7th August, 2014. In view of the above

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 of that appeal in ITA Nos. 3927 & 3420/Ahd/2014. 35.The relevant findings of the Tribunal have been elaborately extracted while deciding ground no. 6 of the present appeal. Therefore, to avoid repetition, . A.Y. 2009-10 respectfully following the findings given while deciding ground no. 6 of the present appeal. We direct the A.O. to delete the addition

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 of that appeal in ITA Nos. 3927 & 3420/Ahd/2014. 35.The relevant findings of the Tribunal have been elaborately extracted while deciding ground no. 6 of the present appeal. Therefore, to avoid repetition, . A.Y. 2009-10 respectfully following the findings given while deciding ground no. 6 of the present appeal. We direct the A.O. to delete the addition

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 of that appeal in ITA Nos. 3927 & 3420/Ahd/2014. 35.The relevant findings of the Tribunal have been elaborately extracted while deciding ground no. 6 of the present appeal. Therefore, to avoid repetition, . A.Y. 2009-10 respectfully following the findings given while deciding ground no. 6 of the present appeal. We direct the A.O. to delete the addition

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 of that appeal in ITA Nos. 3927 & 3420/Ahd/2014. 35.The relevant findings of the Tribunal have been elaborately extracted while deciding ground no. 6 of the present appeal. Therefore, to avoid repetition, . A.Y. 2009-10 respectfully following the findings given while deciding ground no. 6 of the present appeal. We direct the A.O. to delete the addition

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

5,35,45,74,74,780/12) 4,442 Amount as per section 14A r.w.r. 8D (under New Rule 8D) (1 % of Annual Average of Monthly Average investment yielding tax free return) 44.42 3.4 Accordingly, a further disallowance under Rule 8D of Rs.(44,62,14,562.32-1,03,08,336)/-is being made. After considering the nature of addition, penalty