THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., 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

Section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D 8,70,747 5 Disallowance of Weighted Deduction under 65,09,81,251 Section 35(2AB) 6 Capitalization

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

251 and the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd.,183 CTR 182, the assessee contended that depreciation should not be reduced in the year under consideration. However, the AO did not accept the contentions of the assessee. While referring to the amendment in the provisions of section

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

Section 40A(2)(b) would not permit disallowance when there was no finding the effect that the labour charges paid were in excess of the fair market charges and that the authorities below disallowed the labour charges without ascertaining the fair market value of the same.” 12.3. Accordingly, in view of the facts of the instant case, we observe that

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 251 of the Act without satisfying the conditions provided under the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in enhancing the scope of proceedings without appreciating the provisions of the Act in proper perspective. 7 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 251 of the Act without satisfying the conditions provided under the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in enhancing the scope of proceedings without appreciating the provisions of the Act in proper perspective. 7 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 251 of the Act without satisfying the conditions provided under the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in enhancing the scope of proceedings without appreciating the provisions of the Act in proper perspective. 7 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 251 of the Act without satisfying the conditions provided under the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in enhancing the scope of proceedings without appreciating the provisions of the Act in proper perspective. 7 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing

ATUL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarasst.Year 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2006-07 Atul Limited Dcit (Osd), Range-1 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Chambers Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Rasala Marg, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380009. Pan : Aabca 2390 M Asst.Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2006-07 & It(Tp)A No.1108/Ahd/2017 Asst.Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul Limited Ahmedabad. 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Chambers Rasala Marg, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad 380009. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

section 251 of the Act. He thereafter proceeded to argue each of the grounds raised in the appeal. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue reads as under: (1) The CIT(A) has erred in directing to allow prior period expenses after compliance of direction of Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's case for A.Y.2006-07 whereas the Hon'ble ITAT

ATUL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarasst.Year 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2006-07 Atul Limited Dcit (Osd), Range-1 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Chambers Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Rasala Marg, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380009. Pan : Aabca 2390 M Asst.Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2006-07 & It(Tp)A No.1108/Ahd/2017 Asst.Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul Limited Ahmedabad. 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Chambers Rasala Marg, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad 380009. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

section 251 of the Act. He thereafter proceeded to argue each of the grounds raised in the appeal. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue reads as under: (1) The CIT(A) has erred in directing to allow prior period expenses after compliance of direction of Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's case for A.Y.2006-07 whereas the Hon'ble ITAT

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

MAHENDRA PATEL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to the provident fund. The said ground is accordingly treated as not pressed and is dismissed as such in case of all the appeals.\n6.\nDisallowance under section 37(1):\n6.1 In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted from