GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed by the Ld. AO the same was subsequently allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case. In this respect, the assessee further relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Dakshin Gujarat ITA Nos.318&414/Ahd/2020 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Year

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act, 2022 will be applicable prospectively and disallowance should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The PCIT has also noted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act, 2022 will be applicable prospectively and disallowance should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The PCIT has also noted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act, 2022 will be applicable prospectively and disallowance should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The PCIT has also noted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act, 2022 will be applicable prospectively and disallowance should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The PCIT has also noted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

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

disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

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

disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250

ORIENTAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

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

disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2008- 09 and 2009-10. Since, the issues raised in the appeals are stated ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2 to be identical and inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2008- 09 and 2009-10. Since, the issues raised in the appeals are stated ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2 to be identical and inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2008- 09 and 2009-10. Since, the issues raised in the appeals are stated ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2 to be identical and inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2008- 09 and 2009-10. Since, the issues raised in the appeals are stated ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2 to be identical and inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order

TML INDUSTRIES LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed exempt income to the tune of Rs.3,36,810/- during the year under consideration. Against the same, the assessee suo moto disallowed a sum of Rs.44,250

VARUN SATYAPAL SINGHAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3( NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

250 vide order dated 23/06/2023 passed for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Before us, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 of his I.T.A No. 636/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Varun Satyapal Singhal vs. DCIT appeal. Accordingly, Ground

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:-

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the upward adjustment

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

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated