KAPADIA MARKETING INC.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

1. The learned CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.1,05,00,000 under Section 35(1

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 Weighted Deduction under 65,09,81,251 Section 35(2AB) 6 Capitalization of Interest to Capital Work-in- 11,29,21,996 Progress (CWIP) under Section 36(1

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 Weighted Deduction under 65,09,81,251 Section 35(2AB) 6 Capitalization of Interest to Capital Work-in- 11,29,21,996 Progress (CWIP) under Section 36(1

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

disallowance of business promotion expenses under section 37(1) of the Act. 4. The facts are in brief that the assessee is a public company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs & Pharmaceuticals. During the year, the assesse has claimed certain expenditures under the head business promotions, detailed as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount Claimed as expenditure 1

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

disallowance of business promotion expenses under section 37(1) of the Act. 4. The facts are in brief that the assessee is a public company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs & Pharmaceuticals. During the year, the assesse has claimed certain expenditures under the head business promotions, detailed as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount Claimed as expenditure 1

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDO COLCHEM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for any payments made to such non-resident agents without deduction of tax at source. Learned representatives, however, fairly agree, even as learned Departmental Representative dutifully relies upon the stand of the authorities below, that this issue is now covered by a coordinate bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT

M/S. INOX INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

disallowance as per the provisions of the law. 4. The assessee is aggrieved by the order so framed by the Pri. CIT and is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. 6. We find that, as learned

KARNAVATI ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for any payments made to such non- resident agents without deduction of tax at source. Learned representatives, however, fairly agree, even as learned Departmental Representative dutifully relies upon the stand of the authorities below, that this issue is now covered by a coordinate bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDO COLCHEM PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for any payments made to such non-resident agents without deduction of tax at source. Learned representatives, however, fairly agree, even as learned Departmental Representative dutifully relies upon the stand of the authorities below, that this issue is now covered by a coordinate bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

35. In the light of the above legal position, what we need to decide at the outset is whether the amounts paid by the assessee to the non-resident agents could be termed as "consideration for the rendering of any managerial, technical and consultancy services". As we do so, it is useful to bear in mind the fact that even

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

35. In the light of the above legal position, what we need to decide at the outset is whether the amounts paid by the assessee to the non-resident agents could be termed as "consideration for the rendering of any managerial, technical and consultancy services". As we do so, it is useful to bear in mind the fact that even

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. ASTRAL PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES,, BARODA

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax From The Payments Made To M/S. Urja International, Usa Which Proves That The

disallowing the commission payments made abroad on the ground that no TDS was deducted. In view of the various case laws mentioned supra and respectfully following them, I am of the considered view that the claim of the Appellant is in accordance with law. Some other recent decisions which are directly on the issue of sales commission to non-residents