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

Section 36(1)(iii) 7 Disallowance of Sales Promotion / Business 23,05,47,312 Promotion Expenses under Section 37 8 Disallowance

M/S. HAVMOR ICE CREAM LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Havmor Ice Cream Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Commerce House Iv Vs Income-Tax, Besides Shell Petrol Pump Circle-2(1)(1), Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aabch 6766 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pramod M. Jagtap, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Dated 12.10.2017 & The Solitary Issue Relating To Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- On Account Of Interest As Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Raised Therein By Way Of The Following Original Grounds:- “Ground No.1 – Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Towards Capital Work In Progress (“Cwip”) 1. Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act On Account Of Expenditure Incurred By The Appellant On Cwip. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Considering The Facts That Expenditure Incurred On Cwip Ay 2013-14 Havmor Ice Cream Ltd. Vs. Dcit 2

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act can be made. • Section 36(1) (iii) of the Act does

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

sections": [ "14A", "36(1)(iii)", "139(1)", "143(3)", "143(2)", "80GGB", "32", "68", "37(1)", "115JB" ], "issues": "The primary issues revolve around the allowability of various expenses and disallowances

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii)\n30.\nFor A.Y. 2013–14, the Assessing Officer noted from the books of\naccount

JAI PRAKASH CHOUDHARY,VADODARA vs. THE ADIT CPC, BENGLURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce section 143(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total

JAI PRAKASH CHOUDHARY,VADODARA vs. THE ADIT CPC, BENGLURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce section 143(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total

JAIPRAKASH CHOUDHARY,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce section 143(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total

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

disallowed proportionate interest of Rs. 26,25,000/- (calculated at 15% of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-) under Section 36(1)(iii

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

disallowed proportionate interest of Rs. 26,25,000/- (calculated at 15% of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-) under Section 36(1)(iii

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

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

disallowed proportionate interest of Rs. 26,25,000/- (calculated at 15% of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-) under Section 36(1)(iii

KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming disallowance of interest expense of Rs. 35,18,785/- u/s. 36(1)(iii

THE ANUP ENGINEERING LTD.(MERGED WITH ANVESHAH HEAVY ENGI. LTD),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 The Anup Engineering Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, (Merged With Anveshah Heavy Vs Bangalore. Engineering Ltd.) Nr.66 Kv Power Station Odhav Road, Odhav, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaqca 0309 R

iii) of the proviso to section 143(1)(a), disallow a claim or a deduction because, in his view, Diversified Services vs. ITO adequate evidence in support of such a claim or deduction is not before him. He can disallow a claim for deduction only if he is satisfied, on the basis of the material which is before him, that

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

iii), observing that the assessee’s passive investment activity could still attract expenditure, and the disallowance made was in accordance with law. The DRP also affirmed the addition of the disallowed amount to the book profits under section 115JB. 11. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) took us through the paper book and referred

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) for Rs.79,90,00,000? b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble High Court erred, in holding that ‘dairying’ is not industry or agricultural, development or development, of industrial facility for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viii) of the income

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) for Rs.79,90,00,000? b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble High Court erred, in holding that ‘dairying’ is not industry or agricultural, development or development, of industrial facility for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viii) of the income

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) for Rs.79,90,00,000? b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble High Court erred, in holding that ‘dairying’ is not industry or agricultural, development or development, of industrial facility for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viii) of the income

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) for Rs.79,90,00,000? b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble High Court erred, in holding that ‘dairying’ is not industry or agricultural, development or development, of industrial facility for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viii) of the income

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)

36. By order dated 16th May, 2012, the following substantial questions of law were framed in the present appeals: "(i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that while computing book profit under Section 115JA (sic. Section 115JB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no disallowance under Section 14A was required to be made? Learned counsel