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

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

M/S. BAJAJ FOODS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

747/-. and in view of the settled proposition of law in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.410 ITR 466(SC) that where sufficient own interest free funds were available, the presumption is that the said funds were used for making interest free advances calling for no disallowance of interest, the issue be adjudicated following the said proposition

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

747/- only under section 69C of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of accounts for the said amount. The 1st controversy arises for our adjudication whether the difference in 8.1 the balance as discussed above can be made subject to the addition under section 68 of the Act. The answer stands

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

747/- only under section 69C of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of accounts for the said amount. The 1st controversy arises for our adjudication whether the difference in 8.1 the balance as discussed above can be made subject to the addition under section 68 of the Act. The answer stands

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

747/- only under section 69C of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of accounts for the said amount. The 1st controversy arises for our adjudication whether the difference in 8.1 the balance as discussed above can be made subject to the addition under section 68 of the Act. The answer stands

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VII,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

747/- only under section 69C of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of accounts for the said amount. The 1st controversy arises for our adjudication whether the difference in 8.1 the balance as discussed above can be made subject to the addition under section 68 of the Act. The answer stands

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

747/- only under section 69C of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of accounts for the said amount. The 1st controversy arises for our adjudication whether the difference in 8.1 the balance as discussed above can be made subject to the addition under section 68 of the Act. The answer stands

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

747/- only under section 69C of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of accounts for the said amount. The 1st controversy arises for our adjudication whether the difference in 8.1 the balance as discussed above can be made subject to the addition under section 68 of the Act. The answer stands

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

747/- only under section 69C of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of accounts for the said amount. The 1st controversy arises for our adjudication whether the difference in 8.1 the balance as discussed above can be made subject to the addition under section 68 of the Act. The answer stands

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANIL TRADECOM LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance of interest payment under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR at the time of hearing taken the plea that since the assessee company ceased to function as a corporate

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANIL TRADECOM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance of interest payment under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR at the time of hearing taken the plea that since the assessee company ceased to function as a corporate

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANIL TRADECOM LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance of interest payment under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR at the time of hearing taken the plea that since the assessee company ceased to function as a corporate

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account