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

690 CWIP funds as on 01-04-2014 3,27,70,97,484 CWIP funds as on 31-03-2015 4,03,66,85,957 Average CWIP Funds (C) 3,65,68,91,720 Proportionate Interest Disallowance (B × C) ÷ A Amount Disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 11,29,21,996 ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 43 80. Before

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act to the tune of Rs.19,34,368/-. The details of the parties to whom the ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 5 payments were made by the assessee is reproduced in the order as under: Sr.No. Party Name Country Name Amount in Rs. 5 Clifford

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act to the tune of Rs.19,34,368/-. The details of the parties to whom the ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 5 payments were made by the assessee is reproduced in the order as under: Sr.No. Party Name Country Name Amount in Rs. 5 Clifford

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act to the tune of Rs.19,34,368/-. The details of the parties to whom the ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 5 payments were made by the assessee is reproduced in the order as under: Sr.No. Party Name Country Name Amount in Rs. 5 Clifford

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act to the tune of Rs.19,34,368/-. The details of the parties to whom the ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 5 payments were made by the assessee is reproduced in the order as under: Sr.No. Party Name Country Name Amount in Rs. 5 Clifford

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

690/-by ignoring that corporate guarantee constitutes an international transaction. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.I9,6I,02,194/- for benchmarking of purchase of coal. (3) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the Section MA disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

690/-by ignoring that corporate guarantee constitutes an international transaction. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.I9,6I,02,194/- for benchmarking of purchase of coal. (3) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the Section MA disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

690/-by ignoring that corporate guarantee constitutes an international transaction. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.I9,6I,02,194/- for benchmarking of purchase of coal. (3) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the Section MA disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

690/-by ignoring that corporate guarantee constitutes an international transaction. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.I9,6I,02,194/- for benchmarking of purchase of coal. (3) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the Section MA disallowance

GOYAL & CO. (CONST.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

690/- under section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even when no such addition is called for. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance

GOYAL & CO. (CONST.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

690/- under section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even when no such addition is called for. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance

CERA SANITARYWARE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2020-21 Cera Sanitaryware Ltd The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 7Th & 8Th Floor, “B” Wing Vs Ahmedabad. Privilon, Ambli Brts Road Iskcon Cross Roads Shilaj Bo, Taluka : Daskroi Dist: Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabcm 9244 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Dinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Malarkodi R., Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

disallowance of Rs.45,97,690 under Section 41(1) on the ground that there is no cause of action arising

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. NIYATI CONSTRUCTION CO.,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3559/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Niyati Construction बनाम/ Co., E-301 & E-307, Circle-1(2), Vs. Kalpvruksh Complex, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Near T. B. Hospital, Race Course Circle, Gotri Road, Baroda Vadodara "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfn0411E .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 12,03,690/- and disallowance under Section 40(b) of Rs. 10,18,000/-. The AO has made

MAHENDRA PATEL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to the provident fund. The said ground is accordingly treated as not pressed and is dismissed as such in case of all the appeals.\n6.\nDisallowance under section 37(1):\n6.1 In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted from

BARODA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Asst

690;\n4. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. ITA Nos.512 & 513/JP/2019;\n5. Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Co-op. credit Society Ltd., 189 ITD 601;\n4.\nAccording to the ld.counsel for the assessee expression “whole of such\nincome\" has been employed in section 80P(2)(d), and therefore, for the purpose of\ncomputing deduction admissible under section

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing the deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

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

section 36(1)(iii) are clearly applicable. As regard appellant's argument that it has its own accrual to make investment in CWIP, appellant has incurred expenditure out of cash credit account on which interest has been paid. Appellant has relied on the case of Nirma Limited in which Honourable Tribunal has stated that in a case of cash credit

BARODA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Asst

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

690; 4. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. ITA Nos.512 & 513/JP/2019; 5. Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Co-op. credit Society Ltd., 189 ITD 601; 4. According to the ld.counsel for the assessee expression “whole of such income” has been employed in section 80P(2)(d), and therefore, for the purpose of computing deduction admissible under section

BARODA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Asst

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

690; 4. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. ITA Nos.512 & 513/JP/2019; 5. Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Co-op. credit Society Ltd., 189 ITD 601; 4. According to the ld.counsel for the assessee expression “whole of such income” has been employed in section 80P(2)(d), and therefore, for the purpose of computing deduction admissible under section