M/S. HAVMOR ICE CREAM LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Havmor Ice Cream Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Commerce House Iv Vs Income-Tax, Besides Shell Petrol Pump Circle-2(1)(1), Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aabch 6766 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pramod M. Jagtap, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Dated 12.10.2017 & The Solitary Issue Relating To Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- On Account Of Interest As Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Raised Therein By Way Of The Following Original Grounds:- “Ground No.1 – Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Towards Capital Work In Progress (“Cwip”) 1. Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act On Account Of Expenditure Incurred By The Appellant On Cwip. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Considering The Facts That Expenditure Incurred On Cwip Ay 2013-14 Havmor Ice Cream Ltd. Vs. Dcit 2

disallowance of interest expenditure came to be decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nirma Limited (supra) was entirely different and eventhough it was found as a fact in that case that it was a case of extension of existing business, the interest expenditure was allowed as deduction since the proviso to section

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of certain item by holding them non-eligible for deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. Thus, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee is before us vide ground No. 3 of its appeal whereas the revenue is before us vide ground No. 2 of its appeal. For the sake of convenience

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

disallowed the claim of the assessee. 45. After considering submissions of the both the sides, we find that though the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) has held that if the payment to PF and ESI are not being made within the due date prescribed under those Act, then deduction will

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

disallowed the claim of the assessee. 45. After considering submissions of the both the sides, we find that though the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) has held that if the payment to PF and ESI are not being made within the due date prescribed under those Act, then deduction will

CHILODA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5), GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

disallowance of claim made u/s 80P invoking section 80A (5) ignoring the fact that relevant section I.T.A No. 837/Ahd/2025 Chiloda

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1466/Ahd/2024 & 1467/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively The Acit Rajkamal Builders बनाम/ Circle-3(1)(1) Infrastrucutre Pvt.Ltd. V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 54, Park Hill Nr.Heaven Park Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcr 0326 A अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: /10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the assessee failed to adjust these losses, which, according to the AO, violated the provisions of Section 80A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1466/Ahd/2024 & 1467/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively The Acit Rajkamal Builders बनाम/ Circle-3(1)(1) Infrastrucutre Pvt.Ltd. V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 54, Park Hill Nr.Heaven Park Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcr 0326 A अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: /10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the assessee failed to adjust these losses, which, according to the AO, violated the provisions of Section 80A

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee is in the nature of income as assessee could not demonstrate

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee is in the nature of income as assessee could not demonstrate

THE GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY WARD-4), GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

disallowance of claim made u/s 80P invoking section 80A(5) ignoring the fact that relevant section do not speak about

BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act with reference to net interest expenses of the assessee. The assessee partially succeeds on this ground of appeal.” We have also carefully considered the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Banaskantha Dist. Co-op Milk Producers’ Union Ltd. which was followed the decision passed by the Hon’ble Delhi

BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act with reference to net interest expenses of the assessee. The assessee partially succeeds on this ground of appeal.” We have also carefully considered the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Banaskantha Dist. Co-op Milk Producers’ Union Ltd. which was followed the decision passed by the Hon’ble Delhi

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing claim u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Bodal Chemicals Ltd Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(ia) of the Action respect of operating and maintaining infrastructure facilities

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 417/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Rajkamal Builders The D.C.I.T. बनाम/ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 3(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad 54, Park Hill Society, Opp: Karnavati Club Nr. Heaven Park, Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr0326A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 13/07/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 10/10/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2017 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 9, Ahmedabad Arising Out Of The Order Dated 17.10.2016 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2014-15, Whereby & Whereunder Mainly The Claim Under Section 80Ia(4) Of The Act Made By The

80A(2) r.w. section 80B(5) as well as the ratio of decision laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer (IT) & Another, (2008) 299 ITR 444 (SC), in order to claim the deduction under Chapter- VI-A, first of all the gross total income is to be worked

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under various provisions contained in sub-chapter C which has already been claimed and allowed under section 80-IA. [Para 24] - Therefore, sub-section (9) of section 80-IA has two implications. First part would operate as to denying an assessee's claim of deduction under other provisions of sub-chapter