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 Rs.10,19,24,003/-, which was made by the Assessing Officer by allocating a portion of common research and development (R&D) expenses to units of the assessee claiming deduction under sections 10AA, 80-IC, and 80-IE of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed weighted deduction under section 35

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 Rs.10,19,24,003/-, which was made by the Assessing Officer by allocating a portion of common research and development (R&D) expenses to units of the assessee claiming deduction under sections 10AA, 80-IC, and 80-IE of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed weighted deduction under section 35

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 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.7,26,22,384/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act ignoring the serious discrepancies brought out by the AO. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance

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 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.7,26,22,384/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act ignoring the serious discrepancies brought out by the AO. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance

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 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.7,26,22,384/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act ignoring the serious discrepancies brought out by the AO. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance

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 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.7,26,22,384/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act ignoring the serious discrepancies brought out by the AO. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TAYLORMADE RENEWABLES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed the claim for weighted deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance as made by the Assessing

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

section 37 of the Act. However, the AO disallowed the above expenses as being “capital expenditure” and after allowing depreciation on such disallowances, added the residual difference amounting I.T.A No. 17/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 26 Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. DCIT to " 10,35

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)

35,15,29,011/- 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)

35,15,29,011/- 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)

35,15,29,011/- 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)

35,15,29,011/- 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 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)

section 40A(2)(b) is inherently unsustainable in law. For this short reason alone, we delete the impugned disallowance of Rs.10,35

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,04,50,000/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act as per following

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,04,50,000/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act as per following

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,04,50,000/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act as per following

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,04,50,000/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act as per following

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,04,50,000/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act as per following