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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.11,92,27,438/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act towards weighted

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.11,92,27,438/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act towards weighted

TEKNI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) while filing the return of income and/or under section 438 in the rectification application

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)

disallowances indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computation of income. In this regard, it will be in the fitness of things to refer to the provision of section 36(1)(va) again. The same is extracted below [(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions

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)

disallowances indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computation of income. In this regard, it will be in the fitness of things to refer to the provision of section 36(1)(va) again. The same is extracted below [(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions

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)

disallowances indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computation of income. In this regard, it will be in the fitness of things to refer to the provision of section 36(1)(va) again. The same is extracted below [(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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

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

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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

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

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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 :

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

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

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

disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2015

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT.,CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal ITA 2334/Ahd/2015 filed by assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by the Act. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd (supra) where it was held that debt need not be proved to be irrecoverable and it is sufficient if they are written off. The decisions in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. (supra) and Sri T. Pitamber

DHOLU CONSTRUCTION & PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

438, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed

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

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

disallowance under section 35(2AB) of the Act in connection with R&D expenses in respect of clinical trial and bio-equivalence study of " 38,98,08,000/- on the ground that the above expenses have been incurred outside the approved in-house R&D facilities under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 29. Before us, the counsel