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)(iii

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

1) in respect of specified domestic transactions including inter-unit sale of electricity 3 and steam. The TPO passed an order dated 30.01.2021 under section 92CA(3) proposing an adjustment of Rs.37,77,80,391/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued the draft assessment order dated 24.09.2021 under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act, computing the total

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

Section 35(1)(ii) in respect of the donations made to this Institute. In view of this fact, the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR also relied upon the following decisions in this regard: - i) Iolite Cube Inframaterial Limited vs DCIT, 172 taxmann.com 617 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) II) C K Zipper (P.) Limited

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) could be made. 35. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported

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

35,94,166/- The CIT(A) deleted this Revenue is 41(1) - addition, finding no in appeal Cessation of evidence that the with Liability liabilities ceased to Ground (Sundry exist during the year No.1 Creditors) under consideration. 3 Disallowance Rs. 1,06,18,997/- The CIT(A) found this Revenue is u/s 37 - Trade disallowance in appeal Payables unjustified

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

35,94,166/- The CIT(A) deleted this Revenue is 41(1) - addition, finding no in appeal Cessation of evidence that the with Liability liabilities ceased to Ground (Sundry exist during the year No.1 Creditors) under consideration. 3 Disallowance Rs. 1,06,18,997/- The CIT(A) found this Revenue is u/s 37 - Trade disallowance in appeal Payables unjustified

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

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

35,94,166/- The CIT(A) deleted this Revenue is 41(1) - addition, finding no in appeal Cessation of evidence that the with Liability liabilities ceased to Ground (Sundry exist during the year No.1 Creditors) under consideration. 3 Disallowance Rs. 1,06,18,997/- The CIT(A) found this Revenue is u/s 37 - Trade disallowance in appeal Payables unjustified

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowable would require obliteration, which is not possible. The expression 'in relation to ' has been used in various sections apart from section 14A, such as sections 36(1)(ix), 35(2AB). The phrase 'relating to' has been used again in several sections including sections 36(l)(vii), 28(ii)(c). The phrase 'wholly and exclusively for the purposes

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)

35,800/-u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D?" 9. First we deal with the Revenue’s Appeal in ITA No.302/Ahd/ 2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. We have heard rival submissions at length and also considered the materials placed on record. The assessee contended that even if any disallowances are made u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D, such disallowances cannot be added back to the book

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)

35,800/-u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D?" 9. First we deal with the Revenue’s Appeal in ITA No.302/Ahd/ 2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. We have heard rival submissions at length and also considered the materials placed on record. The assessee contended that even if any disallowances are made u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D, such disallowances cannot be added back to the book

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)

35,800/-u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D?" 9. First we deal with the Revenue’s Appeal in ITA No.302/Ahd/ 2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. We have heard rival submissions at length and also considered the materials placed on record. The assessee contended that even if any disallowances are made u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D, such disallowances cannot be added back to the book

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)

35,800/-u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D?" 9. First we deal with the Revenue’s Appeal in ITA No.302/Ahd/ 2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. We have heard rival submissions at length and also considered the materials placed on record. The assessee contended that even if any disallowances are made u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D, such disallowances cannot be added back to the book

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

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

disallowed the following claim made by the assessee under section 35(2AB) of the Act. i) Weighted deduction claimed by the Rs.2,52,45,668/- assessee on revenue expenditure which was found to be not utilized in the approved in-house R&D Development centre of the assessee; ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals

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

disallowed the following claim made by the assessee under section 35(2AB) of the Act. i) Weighted deduction claimed by the Rs.2,52,45,668/- assessee on revenue expenditure which was found to be not utilized in the approved in-house R&D Development centre of the assessee; ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals

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

disallowed the following claim made by the assessee under section 35(2AB) of the Act. i) Weighted deduction claimed by the Rs.2,52,45,668/- assessee on revenue expenditure which was found to be not utilized in the approved in-house R&D Development centre of the assessee; ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals

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

disallowed the following claim made by the assessee under section 35(2AB) of the Act. i) Weighted deduction claimed by the Rs.2,52,45,668/- assessee on revenue expenditure which was found to be not utilized in the approved in-house R&D Development centre of the assessee; ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals

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