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

36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 12. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of expenditure related to exempt income /s.14A r.w.r 8D of the IT Act made while computing Income under normal provisions of the Act? 13. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

36,90,077/- under section 14A following the appellate order for AY 2010-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now.\n\n3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped at Rs.10

M/S.HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

III, Hyderabad [2013] 36 taxmann.com 348 (Andhra Pradesh) Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Revision Of order prejudicial to interest of revenue [Scope of] Assessment year 2006-07 Whether Assessing Officer in assessment order is not required to give detailed reasons and once it is clear that there was application of mind by an enquiry, Commissioner, merely because

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

iii).\n1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in\nrestricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs.\n10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that\nrequire mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly recorded\nsatisfaction with regard to the correctness

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

iii).\n1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in\nrestricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs.\n10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that\nrequire mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly recorded\nsatisfaction with regard

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

iii).\n\n1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in\nrestricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs.\n10,00,000/- ignoring the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A that\nrequire mandatory invoking of Rule 8D where the A.O. has duly recorded\nsatisfaction with regard