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

section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent of Rs.56,64,29,291/-, holding that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) had not approved such expenditure in Form No. 3CL. The details of the expenditure, amounting to Rs.56,64,29,291/-, so disallowed

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13), determining total income at Rs.178,23,60,063/- as against the returned income of Rs.168,29,62,390/-, after making the following additions: i. disallowance

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2014-15 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd. Ahmedabad. ‘Apollo House’ Rashmi Society Nr.Mithakhali Six Roads Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacg 7248 P

disallowance be deleted. On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities below. 6. We have given our thoughtfull consideration to the facts of the case. We also gone through the material available on record and also orders cited by the ld.counsel for the assessee. The ld.AR filed paper book no.2 which contained page nos.121

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)

29,011/- Less: Amount already disallowed Rs.3,93,211/-). 3.1. further the Ld AO held in view of the explicit provisions of clause (f) of Explanation to section

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)

29,011/- Less: Amount already disallowed Rs.3,93,211/-). 3.1. further the Ld AO held in view of the explicit provisions of clause (f) of Explanation to section

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)

29,011/- Less: Amount already disallowed Rs.3,93,211/-). 3.1. further the Ld AO held in view of the explicit provisions of clause (f) of Explanation to section

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)

29,011/- Less: Amount already disallowed Rs.3,93,211/-). 3.1. further the Ld AO held in view of the explicit provisions of clause (f) of Explanation to section

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

disallowed the deduction of " 1,45,00,000/- being political donation u/s 80GGB of the Act, and " 25,00,000/- being other donation under section 80G of the Act eligible for 100% deduction and " 6,38,77,500/- being other deduction under section 80G of the Act eligible for 50% deduction. 29

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

disallowed the deduction of " 1,45,00,000/- being political donation u/s 80GGB of the Act, and " 25,00,000/- being other donation under section 80G of the Act eligible for 100% deduction and " 6,38,77,500/- being other deduction under section 80G of the Act eligible for 50% deduction. 29

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

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

29,22,8268=Rs.30,26,552/− Total Disallowance under Section 14A:Interest Expenses: Rs. 21,80,985/-. (+) Administrative/Other Expenses: Rs. 30,26,552/- = Rs. 52,07,537/-. 16. Before

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

29,22,8268=Rs.30,26,552/− Total Disallowance under Section 14A:Interest Expenses: Rs. 21,80,985/-. (+) Administrative/Other Expenses: Rs. 30,26,552/- = Rs. 52,07,537/-. 16. Before

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

29,22,8268=Rs.30,26,552/− Total Disallowance under Section 14A:Interest Expenses: Rs. 21,80,985/-. (+) Administrative/Other Expenses: Rs. 30,26,552/- = Rs. 52,07,537/-. 16. Before

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

Appeal is dismissed

29 Atul Ltd. vs. ACIT 24. Another important judgment dealing with Section 14A disallowance which merits consideration is Godrej and Boyce

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A disa//owance of Rs.62,03,43,162/- under both genera/ and MAT pro visions. (3) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.4,29

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A disa//owance of Rs.62,03,43,162/- under both genera/ and MAT pro visions. (3) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.4,29

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A disa//owance of Rs.62,03,43,162/- under both genera/ and MAT pro visions. (3) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.4,29

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A disa//owance of Rs.62,03,43,162/- under both genera/ and MAT pro visions. (3) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.4,29

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

29,319/-. Ground No.6 is dismissed. 60. Ground No.7 reads as under: “7. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the interest disallowance of Rs. 134,22,838/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 61. The issue relates to the disallowance of interest found to be not incurred for the business purpose in terms

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

29,319/-. Ground No.6 is dismissed. 60. Ground No.7 reads as under: “7. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the interest disallowance of Rs. 134,22,838/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 61. The issue relates to the disallowance of interest found to be not incurred for the business purpose in terms