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

3 Disallowance due to Allocation of Common 10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D 8,70,747 5 Disallowance of Weighted Deduction under 65,09,81,251 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

3 Disallowance due to Allocation of Common 10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D 8,70,747 5 Disallowance of Weighted Deduction under 65,09,81,251 Section 35

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 40A(3) of the Act so as to warrant interference. We, therefore, confirm the same. The Revenue’s this ground of appeal is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. ITA Nos.1115 & 962/Ahd/2019 & CO No.10/Ahd/2022(in ITA No. 1115/A/19) Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2014-15 32. Ground No. 5:- Restricting disallowance

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 40A(3) of the Act so as to warrant interference. We, therefore, confirm the same. The Revenue’s this ground of appeal is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. ITA Nos.1115 & 962/Ahd/2019 & CO No.10/Ahd/2022(in ITA No. 1115/A/19) Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2014-15 32. Ground No. 5:- Restricting 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

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

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Disallowance u/s 14A – Rs. 8,07,84,146 as discussed Book Profit u/s. 115JB Rs. 2011,70,46,681 Tax @ 18.5% Rs. 372,16,53,636 9. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,04,62,99,990/- under Section 143C(B) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act under the normal provision

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 of the assessee for the reason that the Institute was not approved to raise donation under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act for the year under consideration. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3

EAGLE STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

35. Consequent to our findings in the preceding paragraphs, we reach a conclusion that the authorities below are not justified in treating the expense incurred by the assessee for Carriage inward and carriage outward as disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and adding back Rs. 1,63,78,648/- claimed as expense towards Carriage Inward and Rs.1

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)

3) of Section 14A were inserted with effect from 1st April, 2007 to provide for methodology for computing of disallowance under Section 14A. However, the actual methodology was provided in terms of Rule 8D only from 24 th March 2008. There was a further amendment to Rule 8D with effect from 2nd June 2016 limiting the disallowance the aggregate

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)

3) of Section 14A were inserted with effect from 1st April, 2007 to provide for methodology for computing of disallowance under Section 14A. However, the actual methodology was provided in terms of Rule 8D only from 24 th March 2008. There was a further amendment to Rule 8D with effect from 2nd June 2016 limiting the disallowance the aggregate

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)

3) of Section 14A were inserted with effect from 1st April, 2007 to provide for methodology for computing of disallowance under Section 14A. However, the actual methodology was provided in terms of Rule 8D only from 24 th March 2008. There was a further amendment to Rule 8D with effect from 2nd June 2016 limiting the disallowance the aggregate

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)

3) of Section 14A were inserted with effect from 1st April, 2007 to provide for methodology for computing of disallowance under Section 14A. However, the actual methodology was provided in terms of Rule 8D only from 24 th March 2008. There was a further amendment to Rule 8D with effect from 2nd June 2016 limiting the disallowance the aggregate

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

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

section 37(1) of the Act. However, the AO disallowed the above expenses as being “capital expenditure” and after I.T.A No. 17/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 23 Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. DCIT allowing depreciation on such disallowances, added the residual difference amounting to " 27,39,58,741/- as income of the assessee during the year under consideration. 16. Before

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 in question. 8. It is seen that as rightly contended on behalf of the assessee, section 35 of the Act grants deduction for Scientific Research expenditure, under the circumstances prescribed there-under, on compliance of the conditions laid down in various provisions of section 35. Now, whereas in some cases, like those coming under the provisions of sections 35

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

3 above, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned C1T(A) further erred in stating amount of disallowance towards weighted portion of disallowance under section 35