IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं I.T.A. Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 ./

(िनधा(cid:6981)रण वष(cid:6981) Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

अपीलाथ(cid:7278) ओर से Appellant by : Ms. Arti N Shah, AR /

(cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर स/े Respondent by : Shri Praveen Verma, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 25/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 01/01/2026

O R D E R

PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM:

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 8, Ahmedabad, (in short ‘the CIT(A)’), both dated 13.11.2019 for the A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14; respectively in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. As the facts and issues involved in the two appeals are common, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We shall first take up the appeal in ITA No.15/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2012-13.

ITA No.15/Ahd/2020 (A.Y. 2012-13)

3. The assesse has taken following grounds in this appeal:

“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of the claim of Appellant company amounting to Rs.5,75,75,376/-under the head of deduction u/s.10AA.

2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of the claim of Appellant company amounting to Rs.3,23,18,236/-under the head of deduction u/s.35(2AB).

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of the claim of Appellant company amounting to Rs.24,77,999/-under the head of disallowance u/s.14A.

4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of the claim of Appellant company amounting to Rs.17.43.239 under the head of disallowance out of interest expenses.

5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-

8,Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of the claim of Appellant company amounting to Rs.4,35,032 /-under the head of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund, ESI, etc.

6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of the claim of Appellant company amounting to Rs.2,22,220 /-under the head of prior period income.

7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of the claim of Appellant company amounting to Rs.7.94,933 /-under the head of Bad Debts.

8. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of the claim of Appellant company amounting to Rs.2,48,078 /-under the head of capital loss due to fire.

9. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of the claim of Appellant company amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/-under the head of provision for Pre-clinical Test expenditure.

10. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of the claim of Appellant company under the head of carry forward of losses.”

We have extensively heard Ms. Arti N Shah, the Ld. AR as well as Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT-DR on all the grounds as taken in this appeal.

4. Ground No.1 : Deduction u/s.10AA of the Act

4.1 The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.5,75,75,376/- u/s.10A of the Act in the return of income, which was disallowed by the AO. The alternative claim of the assessee that