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

3 Disallowance due to Allocation of Common 10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D 8,70

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

70,46,681 Tax @ 18.5% Rs. 372,16,53,636 8. The assessee filed its objection before the Hon’ble DRP-2, Mumbai against the said draft order issued under Section 144C of the Act dated 12.12.2019. The Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel- 2, Mumbai passed order under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 19.03.2021 issuing certain directions

LOK PRAKASHAN LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

Section Earned in Rs. 14A in Rs. Self- 20,69,043/- 20,03,321/- Disallowance by Assessee AO's Calculation 17,37,10,409/- 24,52,39,198/- of Disallowance (Rule 8D) Additional 17,16,41,366/- 24,32,35,877/- Disallowance by AO CIT(A) Decision Partly allowed; directed recalculation per Rule 8D excluding investments not earning exempt income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S LOK PRAKASHAN LTD., AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

Section Earned in Rs. 14A in Rs. Self- 20,69,043/- 20,03,321/- Disallowance by Assessee AO's Calculation 17,37,10,409/- 24,52,39,198/- of Disallowance (Rule 8D) Additional 17,16,41,366/- 24,32,35,877/- Disallowance by AO CIT(A) Decision Partly allowed; directed recalculation per Rule 8D excluding investments not earning exempt income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S LOK PRAKASHAN LTD., AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

Section Earned in Rs. 14A in Rs. Self- 20,69,043/- 20,03,321/- Disallowance by Assessee AO's Calculation 17,37,10,409/- 24,52,39,198/- of Disallowance (Rule 8D) Additional 17,16,41,366/- 24,32,35,877/- Disallowance by AO CIT(A) Decision Partly allowed; directed recalculation per Rule 8D excluding investments not earning exempt income

LOK PRAKASHAN LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

Section Earned in Rs. 14A in Rs. Self- 20,69,043/- 20,03,321/- Disallowance by Assessee AO's Calculation 17,37,10,409/- 24,52,39,198/- of Disallowance (Rule 8D) Additional 17,16,41,366/- 24,32,35,877/- Disallowance by AO CIT(A) Decision Partly allowed; directed recalculation per Rule 8D excluding investments not earning exempt income

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

section 14A disallowance, as the circular itself states in so many words the cases cited above are only illustrative and the principle is that “the courts have generally held that if the expenditure disallowed is related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, the deduction needs to be allowed on the enhanced profits

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

section 14A disallowance, as the circular itself states in so many words the cases cited above are only illustrative and the principle is that “the courts have generally held that if the expenditure disallowed is related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, the deduction needs to be allowed on the enhanced profits

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

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

3) of the Income Tax Act. The tax auditor had not reported these expenses as personal or non-genuine in the tax audit report, implying their ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterprise Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 acceptance as business expenses. The assessee maintained that the expenses on gifts and entertainment were

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

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

3) of the Income Tax Act. The tax auditor had not reported these expenses as personal or non-genuine in the tax audit report, implying their ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterprise Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 acceptance as business expenses. The assessee maintained that the expenses on gifts and entertainment were

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

3) of the Income Tax Act. The tax auditor had not reported these expenses as personal or non-genuine in the tax audit report, implying their ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterprise Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 acceptance as business expenses. The assessee maintained that the expenses on gifts and entertainment were

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 is also directed to be deleted. The grounds of appeal raised

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

3) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.4,29,308/- claimed on shares despite the fact that shares are not depreciable assets. (4) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the depreciation disallowance of Rs.49,54,278/-. (5) It is, therefore, prayed that

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

3) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.4,29,308/- claimed on shares despite the fact that shares are not depreciable assets. (4) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the depreciation disallowance of Rs.49,54,278/-. (5) It is, therefore, prayed that

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

3) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.4,29,308/- claimed on shares despite the fact that shares are not depreciable assets. (4) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the depreciation disallowance of Rs.49,54,278/-. (5) It is, therefore, prayed that

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

3) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.4,29,308/- claimed on shares despite the fact that shares are not depreciable assets. (4) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the depreciation disallowance of Rs.49,54,278/-. (5) It is, therefore, prayed that

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

section 145A as the same is tax natural exercise. ITA No.2030/Ahd/2016 and 3 others A.Y. 2011-12 37 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 71. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the authorities below by reiterating the findings contained in the respective orders which