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

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(2

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(2

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. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed. In response to the said notice, the assessee company furnished the reply dated 08.12.2010 and 20.12.2010. The assessee highlighted in the said reply that the assessee is doing the development of Infrastructure Faciality and, therefore, entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the assessee is dealing with the development work

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed. In response to the said notice, the assessee company furnished the reply dated 08.12.2010 and 20.12.2010. The assessee highlighted in the said reply that the assessee is doing the development of Infrastructure Faciality and, therefore, entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the assessee is dealing with the development work

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed. In response to the said notice, the assessee company furnished the reply dated 08.12.2010 and 20.12.2010. The assessee highlighted in the said reply that the assessee is doing the development of Infrastructure Faciality and, therefore, entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the assessee is dealing with the development work

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed. In response to the said notice, the assessee company furnished the reply dated 08.12.2010 and 20.12.2010. The assessee highlighted in the said reply that the assessee is doing the development of Infrastructure Faciality and, therefore, entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the assessee is dealing with the development work

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed. In response to the said notice, the assessee company furnished the reply dated 08.12.2010 and 20.12.2010. The assessee highlighted in the said reply that the assessee is doing the development of Infrastructure Faciality and, therefore, entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the assessee is dealing with the development work

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed. In response to the said notice, the assessee company furnished the reply dated 08.12.2010 and 20.12.2010. The assessee highlighted in the said reply that the assessee is doing the development of Infrastructure Faciality and, therefore, entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the assessee is dealing with the development work

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed. In response to the said notice, the assessee company furnished the reply dated 08.12.2010 and 20.12.2010. The assessee highlighted in the said reply that the assessee is doing the development of Infrastructure Faciality and, therefore, entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the assessee is dealing with the development work

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed. In response to the said notice, the assessee company furnished the reply dated 08.12.2010 and 20.12.2010. The assessee highlighted in the said reply that the assessee is doing the development of Infrastructure Faciality and, therefore, entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the assessee is dealing with the development work

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed. In response to the said notice, the assessee company furnished the reply dated 08.12.2010 and 20.12.2010. The assessee highlighted in the said reply that the assessee is doing the development of Infrastructure Faciality and, therefore, entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the assessee is dealing with the development work

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 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

2) of section 80A. Therefore, the theory that the Legislature has in far more complex and detailed expression desired to bring about the same result, though in plain terms, when the sub-section read as a whole, conveys entirely different connotation could not be accepted. [Para 24] - In plain terms when read as a whole sub-section (9) of section

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

2) of section 80A. Therefore, the theory that the Legislature has in far more complex and detailed expression desired to bring about the same result, though in plain terms, when the sub-section read as a whole, conveys entirely different connotation could not be accepted. [Para 24] - In plain terms when read as a whole sub-section (9) of section

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

2) of section 80A. Therefore, the theory that the Legislature has in far more complex and detailed expression desired to bring about the same result, though in plain terms, when the sub-section read as a whole, conveys entirely different connotation could not be accepted. [Para 24] - In plain terms when read as a whole sub-section (9) of section

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

2) of section 80A. Therefore, the theory that the Legislature has in far more complex and detailed expression desired to bring about the same result, though in plain terms, when the sub-section read as a whole, conveys entirely different connotation could not be accepted. [Para 24] - In plain terms when read as a whole sub-section (9) of section

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