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

iv. Product development expenses (capital in nature): Rs.2,16,21,768/- 18. Before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the disallowance of expenditure incurred on clinical trials outside the factory was contrary to settled judicial position. It was contended that the DSIR is only required to approve the in-house research and development facility, and not to quantify each

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

iv. Product development expenses (capital in nature): Rs.2,16,21,768/- 18. Before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the disallowance of expenditure incurred on clinical trials outside the factory was contrary to settled judicial position. It was contended that the DSIR is only required to approve the in-house research and development facility, and not to quantify each

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

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)

IV which relates to computation of Total Income as per ITR, whereas section 115JB is forming part of Chapter XII-B to which provisions of section 14A cannot be applied. Thus it may be appreciated that the title itself suggest the section provides for disallowance of expenses to be made while computing TOTAL INCOME. It is pertinent to note that

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)

IV which relates to computation of Total Income as per ITR, whereas section 115JB is forming part of Chapter XII-B to which provisions of section 14A cannot be applied. Thus it may be appreciated that the title itself suggest the section provides for disallowance of expenses to be made while computing TOTAL INCOME. It is pertinent to note that

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)

IV which relates to computation of Total Income as per ITR, whereas section 115JB is forming part of Chapter XII-B to which provisions of section 14A cannot be applied. Thus it may be appreciated that the title itself suggest the section provides for disallowance of expenses to be made while computing TOTAL INCOME. It is pertinent to note that

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)

IV which relates to computation of Total Income as per ITR, whereas section 115JB is forming part of Chapter XII-B to which provisions of section 14A cannot be applied. Thus it may be appreciated that the title itself suggest the section provides for disallowance of expenses to be made while computing TOTAL INCOME. It is pertinent to note that

COSMOS ENGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarcosmos Engitech Private Ltd., The Assistant Vs. Plot No.85/2, Cosmos House, Commissioner Padra Road, Atladara, Of Income Tax, Vadodara-380015. Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara. [Pan :Aaacc7647 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

disallowing an amount of Rs.10,16,499/- on account of unexplained sales promotion and sales commission expenses. Cosmos Engitech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 6– 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by following observations:- 4. I have carefully

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

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii)\n30. For A.Y. 2013–14, the Assessing Officer noted from the books of\naccount and details furnished that the assessee had advanced sums without\ncharging interest to the following parties: (i) Godiji Realty Pvt. Ltd. – Rs.\n2,45,00,000/-, (ii) Venugopal Infrastructure Rs. 35,00,000/-, (iii) Pawan\nInfraspace

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act (relating to expenditure incurred during the year on intangibles and accounted under capital work in progress on which no depreciation has been claimed later on) made by appellant company. (b) That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Article

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

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act (relating to expenditure incurred during the year on intangibles and accounted under capital work in progress on which no depreciation has been claimed later on) made by appellant company. (b) That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Article

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

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act (relating to expenditure incurred during the year on intangibles and accounted under capital work in progress on which no depreciation has been claimed later on) made by appellant company. (b) That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Article

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

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act (relating to expenditure incurred during the year on intangibles and accounted under capital work in progress on which no depreciation has been claimed later on) made by appellant company. (b) That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Article

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

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act (relating to expenditure incurred during the year on intangibles and accounted under capital work in progress on which no depreciation has been claimed later on) made by appellant company. (b) That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Article

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

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act (relating to expenditure incurred during the year on intangibles and accounted under capital work in progress on which no depreciation has been claimed later on) made by appellant company. (b) That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Article

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance and the ld. CIT(A) to confirm the same. This does also take care of a without prejudice contentions raised by the assessee, to the fact that deduction of actual expenditure of Rs.28,34,688/- be allowed to the assessee under the provisions of section 35(1)(i) and 35(1)(iv

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

section 35(2AB) of the Act, u/s 35(1)(i) and 35(1)(iv) of the Act, if found eligible. The AO however disallowed

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

35,000 written off 1291/Ahd/2016 2006-07 Assessee 71,91,000 6 15 Write-off of Loan 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 3,66,67,734 7 Liabilities as Taxable under Section 28(iv) 13 Disallowance of 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 6,74,517 6 Repair and 1291/Ahd/2016 2006-07 Assessee 4,39,663 5 Maintenance – 1783/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Assessee

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

35,000 written off 1291/Ahd/2016 2006-07 Assessee 71,91,000 6 15 Write-off of Loan 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 3,66,67,734 7 Liabilities as Taxable under Section 28(iv) 13 Disallowance of 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 6,74,517 6 Repair and 1291/Ahd/2016 2006-07 Assessee 4,39,663 5 Maintenance – 1783/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Assessee