GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Rs.61,45,72,000/- on account of disallowance made under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) (1) AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

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

Section 144C(3) of the Act, adopted the TPO’s findings and passed an assessment order determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.80,85,45,535/-, after making the following adjustments: and CO No.10/Ahd/2024 (By Assessee) The Asstt.CIT vs. Inductotherm (India) Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year:2016-17 3 - Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.2,67,13,481/-. - Disallowance

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)

45 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT 15. Third fold of submission of the assessee namely own funds of the Assessee were much more than the investments made by the Assessee, hence no disallowance be made u/s.14A of the Act on account of interest expenditure. It is seen from

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)

45 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT 15. Third fold of submission of the assessee namely own funds of the Assessee were much more than the investments made by the Assessee, hence no disallowance be made u/s.14A of the Act on account of interest expenditure. It is seen from

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)

45 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT 15. Third fold of submission of the assessee namely own funds of the Assessee were much more than the investments made by the Assessee, hence no disallowance be made u/s.14A of the Act on account of interest expenditure. It is seen from

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)

45 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT 15. Third fold of submission of the assessee namely own funds of the Assessee were much more than the investments made by the Assessee, hence no disallowance be made u/s.14A of the Act on account of interest expenditure. It is seen from

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Rs.61,45,72,000/- on account of disallowance made under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Rs.61,45,72,000/- on account of disallowance made under section

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 under section 36(1)(iii) cannot be sustained. ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 45 86. In the present year as well

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

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) cannot be sustained. ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 45 86. In the present year as well

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

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

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

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

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

45 Taxmann.com 116. The Ld.AR further argued that the AO mistakenly referred to tax Audit Report of A.Y. 2015-16 where the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, was worked out by the assessee and the assessee has not worked out such disallowance as it has not earned any exempt income during the year. The Ld.AR also placed reliance

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

45 Taxmann.com 116. The Ld.AR further argued that the AO mistakenly referred to tax Audit Report of A.Y. 2015-16 where the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, was worked out by the assessee and the assessee has not worked out such disallowance as it has not earned any exempt income during the year. The Ld.AR also placed reliance

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

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

45 Taxmann.com 116. The Ld.AR further argued that the AO mistakenly referred to tax Audit Report of A.Y. 2015-16 where the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, was worked out by the assessee and the assessee has not worked out such disallowance as it has not earned any exempt income during the year. The Ld.AR also placed reliance

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of interest under Section 14A of the Act vis-à-vis “interest component” 5. The brief facts of this Ground of Appeal are that assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 07.09.2010 declaring a total income at Rs. 43,15,45

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED, ELLISBRIDGE

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of interest under Section 14A of the Act vis-à-vis “interest component” 5. The brief facts of this Ground of Appeal are that assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 07.09.2010 declaring a total income at Rs. 43,15,45