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

GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2390/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T, Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar Circle, Vs. 6Th Floor, Block No.11, Gandhinagar Udyog Bhavan, Sector 11, Gandhinagar-382011. Pan: Aaacg5304Q आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2319/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012

Section 43B of the Act on the basis of payments made Disallowance u/s 43B in earlier years now written Back 1,103,934,501 Depreciation as per Income Tax Act 3,483,803 VRS Expenditure (l/5th) 6,912,699 Premium on pre-payment Excess provision written back Preliminary Expenditure u/s. 35D [1 /10th] 797,000 ITA nos.2390/Ahd/2014 & other Asstt. Year

SHRI HARSHAD JASWANTLAL SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,A'BAD RANGE-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A No. 2885/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 2 Harshad Jashwantlal Soni vs. Addl. CIT “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance by observing as follows:- “7.2 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. The Purchase Commission and Guarantee Commission is being paid on the basis of tripartite Agreement between Gujarat Gas Company Ltd. And British Gas India Private Limited and BE Energy Holding Ltd. Made on 30th May, 2001. This issue has been decided

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance by observing as follows:- “7.2 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. The Purchase Commission and Guarantee Commission is being paid on the basis of tripartite Agreement between Gujarat Gas Company Ltd. And British Gas India Private Limited and BE Energy Holding Ltd. Made on 30th May, 2001. This issue has been decided

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance by observing as follows:- “7.2 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. The Purchase Commission and Guarantee Commission is being paid on the basis of tripartite Agreement between Gujarat Gas Company Ltd. And British Gas India Private Limited and BE Energy Holding Ltd. Made on 30th May, 2001. This issue has been decided

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance by observing as follows:- “7.2 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. The Purchase Commission and Guarantee Commission is being paid on the basis of tripartite Agreement between Gujarat Gas Company Ltd. And British Gas India Private Limited and BE Energy Holding Ltd. Made on 30th May, 2001. This issue has been decided

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance by observing as follows:- “7.2 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. The Purchase Commission and Guarantee Commission is being paid on the basis of tripartite Agreement between Gujarat Gas Company Ltd. And British Gas India Private Limited and BE Energy Holding Ltd. Made on 30th May, 2001. This issue has been decided

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance by observing as follows:- “7.2 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. The Purchase Commission and Guarantee Commission is being paid on the basis of tripartite Agreement between Gujarat Gas Company Ltd. And British Gas India Private Limited and BE Energy Holding Ltd. Made on 30th May, 2001. This issue has been decided

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. 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

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

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, 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 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

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

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