VINAYNA VELJEE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

TDS of " 7,950/- u/s 194DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The assessee had paid one-time premium of " 38,63,753/- for a policy sum assured of " 53,00,000/- which exceeds 20% of capital sum assured, and therefore a portion of sum received (of 1st installment of " 7,95,000/- from LIC) is taxable

SMT. PASHIBEN PRAJAPATI FAMILY TRUST (DISC),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the manner as indicated above

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Has In-Turn Arisen From The Intimation Dated 07.12.2022 Issued By Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S.154(Cpc/2122/U5/ 314311772) Of The Act.

TDS and non allowability of deduction u/s 80C, and shall grant the same, after due verifications, if so warranted. Further, the chargeability to income-tax and scope of income is defined under the 1961 Act by the provisions of Section

SARITA R JADON,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DCIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHRA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

80C - Rs. 16,615/- Interest u/s 244A - Rs. 33,813/- Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - Rs. 6,73,079/- Labourand Wage Expenses - Rs. 37,50,342/- Piece work rate - Rs. 8,57,326/- Bogus Purchase - Rs. 9,48,054/- It is submitted that the assessee has filed all the details and evidences with regard to all the above claims showing that

SARITA R JADON,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DCIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHRA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

80C - Rs. 16,615/- Interest u/s 244A - Rs. 33,813/- Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - Rs. 6,73,079/- Labourand Wage Expenses - Rs. 37,50,342/- Piece work rate - Rs. 8,57,326/- Bogus Purchase - Rs. 9,48,054/- It is submitted that the assessee has filed all the details and evidences with regard to all the above claims showing that

M S HOSTEL,NEW SAMA SAVLI ROAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), VADODARA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS was made good by payment of self assessment tax on 7th April 2015 6 Since she was not in need of funds she has not withdrawn the same and kept with the appellant firm to the credit of her account" 2.1 Vide notices dated 06/01/2021, 11/06/2021, 06/04/2022, 25/04/2023 the appellant was requested to file its reply, In response

VISHNUBHAI MAFATBHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2849/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

section 49(4) for ready reference of your honor. The appellant herewith reproduced comparative statement of computation of total income after incorporating effect as mentioned above. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME Sr. Heads of Income Original Statement Revised Statement No. (Particulars) of Income of Income (as per stand taken by the appellant) 1 Capital Gain 26750129 26750129 - Less. Exemption

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

TDS on salary. Accordingly, AO held that even otherwise it is 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

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

TDS on salary. Accordingly, AO held that even otherwise it is 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

SHRI NATWARLAL SHRICHAND SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘The Act’). 2. The assessee, an individual engaged in the business of trading in Iron and Steel, filed its return of income on 29.09.2014 for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs.3,96,050/- which was finalized u/s 143(3) of the Act on Natvarlal Shrichand