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 of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs. 11,29,21,996/- 79. The Assessing Officer disallowed

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

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act for Rs. 1,08,66,911/- representing street light maintenance income on the reasoning that it is not derived from the activity of power generation. 57. The assessee during the year under consideration earned gross of income of Rs. 5,20,79

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

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act for Rs. 1,08,66,911/- representing street light maintenance income on the reasoning that it is not derived from the activity of power generation. 57. The assessee during the year under consideration earned gross of income of Rs. 5,20,79

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

79,000/-. It is seen that the DSIR has not provided any break-up or explanation of said disallowance in the Form 3CL. However, the AO, while making disallowance of clinical trial expenditure claimed under section

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

79,000/-. It is seen that the DSIR has not provided any break-up or explanation of said disallowance in the Form 3CL. However, the AO, while making disallowance of clinical trial expenditure claimed under section

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

79,000/-. It is seen that the DSIR has not provided any break-up or explanation of said disallowance in the Form 3CL. However, the AO, while making disallowance of clinical trial expenditure claimed under section

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

79,000/-. It is seen that the DSIR has not provided any break-up or explanation of said disallowance in the Form 3CL. However, the AO, while making disallowance of clinical trial expenditure claimed under section

VARUN SATYAPAL SINGHAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3( NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

Section 40A(2)(b) would not permit disallowance when there was no finding the effect that the labour charges paid were in excess of the fair market charges and that the authorities below disallowed the labour charges without ascertaining the fair market value of the same.” 12.3. Accordingly, in view of the facts of the instant case, we observe 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

section !4A disallowance of Rs. 137,53,16,0061- under both general and ', MAT provisions. (3) The ld. CIT('A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.3,86,3771- claimed on share despite the farfihat shares orenot depreciable assets. (4) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting

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 !4A disallowance of Rs. 137,53,16,0061- under both general and ', MAT provisions. (3) The ld. CIT('A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.3,86,3771- claimed on share despite the farfihat shares orenot depreciable assets. (4) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting

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 !4A disallowance of Rs. 137,53,16,0061- under both general and ', MAT provisions. (3) The ld. CIT('A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.3,86,3771- claimed on share despite the farfihat shares orenot depreciable assets. (4) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting

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 !4A disallowance of Rs. 137,53,16,0061- under both general and ', MAT provisions. (3) The ld. CIT('A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.3,86,3771- claimed on share despite the farfihat shares orenot depreciable assets. (4) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting

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

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

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 u/s.14A of the Act to the Book Profit u/s. 115JB of the Act even when no such addition is called

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

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

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 u/s.14A of the Act to the Book Profit u/s. 115JB of the Act even when no such addition is called

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

79,88,775 A.Y. 2014-15 38,18,27,303 Total 94,38,34,787 2. The appellant submits that during the aforesaid period the appellant company has provided for mark to market loss amounting to Rs.94,38,34,787/- and claimed the same while filing Return of Income. However the Ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the same relying

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

79,88,775 A.Y. 2014-15 38,18,27,303 Total 94,38,34,787 2. The appellant submits that during the aforesaid period the appellant company has provided for mark to market loss amounting to Rs.94,38,34,787/- and claimed the same while filing Return of Income. However the Ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the same relying

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET (DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

79,88,775 A.Y. 2014-15 38,18,27,303 Total 94,38,34,787 2. The appellant submits that during the aforesaid period the appellant company has provided for mark to market loss amounting to Rs.94,38,34,787/- and claimed the same while filing Return of Income. However the Ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the same relying

ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

79,88,775 A.Y. 2014-15 38,18,27,303 Total 94,38,34,787 2. The appellant submits that during the aforesaid period the appellant company has provided for mark to market loss amounting to Rs.94,38,34,787/- and claimed the same while filing Return of Income. However the Ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the same relying

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Abs Tower, Old Circle 1(1)(1), Padra Road, Baroda-390007 Baroda Pan : Aaacg 6725 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.12.2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta:

disallowed under Section 14A of the Act again following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee itself as cited before us and the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Vireet Investment Private Limited (supra). 12. The issues raised by the assessee in this regard in Ground No.1 are accordingly partly allowed