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

92,50,000 3 Disallowance due to Allocation of Common 10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section

TORRENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TORRENT INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

92,537/- which was allowed by the Assessing Officer while as per the Ld. PCIT as per the records itself the disallowance ought to have Rs. 42,82,354/-. Thus, in effect, as per the Ld. PCIT the disallowance made of expenses under 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:-

92. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the material placed on record. The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.8,70,747/- under section

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

92,238/- for NPA, Rs. 2,48,16,431/- for standard assets, and Rs. 5,02,86,958/- for other assets. The DR argued that while the provision for NPA was disallowed by the assessee under Section

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

92,238/- for NPA, Rs. 2,48,16,431/- for standard assets, and Rs. 5,02,86,958/- for other assets. The DR argued that while the provision for NPA was disallowed by the assessee under Section

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

92,238/- for NPA, Rs. 2,48,16,431/- for standard assets, and Rs. 5,02,86,958/- for other assets. The DR argued that while the provision for NPA was disallowed by the assessee under Section

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

92,238/- for NPA, Rs. 2,48,16,431/- for standard assets, and Rs. 5,02,86,958/- for other assets. The DR argued that while the provision for NPA was disallowed by the assessee under Section

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

92,238/- for NPA, Rs. 2,48,16,431/- for standard assets, and Rs. 5,02,86,958/- for other assets. The DR argued that while the provision for NPA was disallowed by the assessee under Section

LOK PRAKASHAN LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

92,67,830/- N/A Return Date of AO’s Assessment 27.12.2019 23.09.2021 Order Order Date Section Section 143(3) Section 143(3) Under Which Order Passed Disallowance

LOK PRAKASHAN LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

92,67,830/- N/A Return Date of AO’s Assessment 27.12.2019 23.09.2021 Order Order Date Section Section 143(3) Section 143(3) Under Which Order Passed Disallowance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S LOK PRAKASHAN LTD., AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

92,67,830/- N/A Return Date of AO’s Assessment 27.12.2019 23.09.2021 Order Order Date Section Section 143(3) Section 143(3) Under Which Order Passed Disallowance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S LOK PRAKASHAN LTD., AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

92,67,830/- N/A Return Date of AO’s Assessment 27.12.2019 23.09.2021 Order Order Date Section Section 143(3) Section 143(3) Under Which Order Passed Disallowance

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

section 68 and also deleted the\nrelated disallowance of Rs. 92,603/- towards interest.\n96. The Revenue is in appeal

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction