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

section 14A of the Act. We allow this ground of appeal in both the years and delete the additions.” 23. We take notice of the fact that in context with the third proposed question, the ITAT placed reliance on the following decisions: (1)CIT Vs. Alembic Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.1249/2014) (2)CITI Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals

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. Secondly in para 41 of the judgement, Hon’ble Apex Court has approved the theory of apportionment while disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D as under:- "41. Having regard to the language of Section14A(2) of the Act, read with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment

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. Secondly in para 41 of the judgement, Hon’ble Apex Court has approved the theory of apportionment while disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D as under:- "41. Having regard to the language of Section14A(2) of the Act, read with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment

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. Secondly in para 41 of the judgement, Hon’ble Apex Court has approved the theory of apportionment while disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D as under:- "41. Having regard to the language of Section14A(2) of the Act, read with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment

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. Secondly in para 41 of the judgement, Hon’ble Apex Court has approved the theory of apportionment while disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D as under:- "41. Having regard to the language of Section14A(2) of the Act, read with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment

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

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

Disallowance Rs. 26,25,000/- The CIT(A) confirmed Assessee is under Section this disallowance, not in appeal 36(1)(iii) - accepting

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

Disallowance Rs. 26,25,000/- The CIT(A) confirmed Assessee is under Section this disallowance, not in appeal 36(1)(iii) - accepting

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

Disallowance Rs. 26,25,000/- The CIT(A) confirmed Assessee is under Section this disallowance, not in appeal 36(1)(iii) - accepting

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

disallowance of claim of depreciation of Goodwill without appreciating that goodwill is self-acquired asset, the actual cost of which in the hands of the amalgamated company is NIL, therefore, after amalgamation, the WDV of the same has also to be taken at NIL in the hands of the assessee company, in view of Explanation 26 to section

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

disallowance of claim of depreciation of Goodwill without appreciating that goodwill is self-acquired asset, the actual cost of which in the hands of the amalgamated company is NIL, therefore, after amalgamation, the WDV of the same has also to be taken at NIL in the hands of the assessee company, in view of Explanation 26 to section

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

Appeal is dismissed

section 28 also. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are on different facts. The advances were given in those cases for running of the business whereas in the case of appellant; the advance was given for new project which did not commence. Therefore assessing officer is justified in disallowing the claim. The disallowance made is therefore confirmed. 26

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. MARKET CREATORS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

26. Ld. A.O. has discussed the issue at page no.11 to 14 in para no. 9 and ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue at page no. 29 to 30 in para 4.4. In this case, a disallowance of Rs.21,53,344/-made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Undisputedly, the appellant company has utilized borrowed funds for purchase of shares

GOYAL & CO. (CONST.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

26,942.00 only. The AO accordingly found that the impugned expenses is not eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Accordingly the AO disallowed

GOYAL & CO. (CONST.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

26,942.00 only. The AO accordingly found that the impugned expenses is not eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Accordingly the AO disallowed

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

26 we find that there was no exempt income in the year under consideration, therefore there cannot be any disallowance while computing the book profit under section

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

26 we find that there was no exempt income in the year under consideration, therefore there cannot be any disallowance while computing the book profit under section

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

disallowance made by the AO under section 35(2AB) of the Act. “(1) The CIT(A) has erred in law and In facts in directing the AO to allow the claim of Rs.7,26

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

disallowance made by the AO under section 35(2AB) of the Act. “(1) The CIT(A) has erred in law and In facts in directing the AO to allow the claim of Rs.7,26

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

disallowance made by the AO under section 35(2AB) of the Act. “(1) The CIT(A) has erred in law and In facts in directing the AO to allow the claim of Rs.7,26