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 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D 8,70,747 5 Disallowance of Weighted Deduction under 65,09,81,251 Section

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. MARKET CREATORS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

70 2 (1)(1), Baroda Sampatrao Colony, Productivity Road, Vadodara (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCM 3439R Appellant by : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Advoate Respondent by : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ITA Nos. 41/Ahd/17 & 2 C.O. 29/Ahd/17& Others . A.Y. 2012-13 (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 09 -01-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08-04-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

70,80,490/- on account of adjustments to the Arm’s Length Price of the transaction of sales made with its Associated Enterprises (AE), as per the provisions of Section 92CA of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the same was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) following his order in the case of the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

70,747/- made by the learned CIT(A) under section 14A read with Rule 8D, including both components under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii). Consequently, the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer to the book profit under section 115JB on account of section 14A 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

disallowed an amount of Rs.1,70,13,679/- under section 14A of the Act. 69. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee

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 an amount of Rs.1,70,13,679/- under section 14A of the Act. 69. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee

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 an amount of Rs.1,70,13,679/- under section 14A of the Act. 69. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee

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 an amount of Rs.1,70,13,679/- under section 14A of the Act. 69. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee

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

disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250), where it was not a question of law and in fact the assessee company has interest free funds

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

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

disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250), where it was not a question of law and in fact the assessee company has interest free funds

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

disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250), where it was not a question of law and in fact the assessee company has interest free funds

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

section 115JB of the Act. 66. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 285/AHD/2020 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 285/AHD/2020 shall also be applicable

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

section 115JB of the Act. 66. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 285/AHD/2020 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 285/AHD/2020 shall also be applicable

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

section 115JB of the Act. 66. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 285/AHD/2020 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 285/AHD/2020 shall also be applicable

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

section 115JB of the Act. 66. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 285/AHD/2020 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 285/AHD/2020 shall also be applicable

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, M/S. Adani Enterprises Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Vs Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Ahmedabad Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009 Pan : Aabca 2804 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, Ar & Shri Biren Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022

70,000 ii) Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure - Rs. 32,63,473 iii) Disallowance of Business Loss claimed as Bad Debts - Rs. 5,02,181 iv) Disallowance of M2M losses – Forex Derivative - Rs. 82,02,615 v) Disallowance under Section

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

70,624/- and current investments of Rs.1,02,321/- as on 31.03.2013. A specific query was raised vide notice under section 142(1) dated 12.06.2015 as to why disallowance