DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gains must be considered as part of eligible income and recomputed the deduction under section 80-IE accordingly. Further, the assessee made additional claims during assessment ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 4– proceedings namely exclusion of GST/excise refund from book profit

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gains must be considered as part of eligible income and recomputed the deduction under section 80-IE accordingly. Further, the assessee made additional claims during assessment ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 4– proceedings namely exclusion of GST/excise refund from book profit

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gains must be considered as part of eligible income and recomputed the deduction under section 80-IE accordingly. Further, the assessee made additional claims during assessment ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 4– proceedings namely exclusion of GST/excise refund from book profit

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gains must be considered as part of eligible income and recomputed the deduction under section 80-IE accordingly. Further, the assessee made additional claims during assessment ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 4– proceedings namely exclusion of GST/excise refund from book profit

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gains must be considered as part of eligible income and recomputed the deduction under section 80-IE accordingly. Further, the assessee made additional claims during assessment ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 4– proceedings namely exclusion of GST/excise refund from book profit

M/S. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

gains had not been included by application of provisions of sub-section 7B of section 10A, the ITA Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (M/s. Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 12 – undertaking being unit shall be entitled to deduction referred to in this sub- section only for the unexpired period of ten consecutive assessment years and thereafter

M/S. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

gains had not been included by application of provisions of sub-section 7B of section 10A, the ITA Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (M/s. Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 12 – undertaking being unit shall be entitled to deduction referred to in this sub- section only for the unexpired period of ten consecutive assessment years and thereafter

KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

23,762/- (i.e., amount of the annual average of the monthly average of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment as per Rule 8A(2)(ii) of the Rules) = Rs. 1,56,10,238/-. It is submitted that the Appellant has not incurred any expenses for earning such exempt income, due to which no disallowance of expenses

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

va] rws 2[24][x] for delayed payment of employees contribution to ESIC of Rs.34,083/=. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee fairly admitted that this issue is held against the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd reported in 448 ITR 518. Respectfully following the same, this Ground no. 6 raised

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

va] rws 2[24][x] for delayed payment of employees contribution to ESIC of Rs.34,083/=. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee fairly admitted that this issue is held against the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd reported in 448 ITR 518. Respectfully following the same, this Ground no. 6 raised

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

va) of the Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 5 5.1 We find that, in this case, the amount was credited to the relevant account only after the due date. We find that this issue already stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.1872/Ahd/2016 (Order dated

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

va) of the Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 5 5.1 We find that, in this case, the amount was credited to the relevant account only after the due date. We find that this issue already stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.1872/Ahd/2016 (Order dated

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

va) of the Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 5 5.1 We find that, in this case, the amount was credited to the relevant account only after the due date. We find that this issue already stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.1872/Ahd/2016 (Order dated

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

va) of the Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 5 5.1 We find that, in this case, the amount was credited to the relevant account only after the due date. We find that this issue already stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.1872/Ahd/2016 (Order dated

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

va) 71,060 Interest Capitalization of WIP 4,88,000 Prior Period Income 1,05,89,848 Interest free advances 4,24,000 Interest free advances to Shri Nilesh Keshavlal Patel 61,677 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given partial relief to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

va) 71,060 Interest Capitalization of WIP 4,88,000 Prior Period Income 1,05,89,848 Interest free advances 4,24,000 Interest free advances to Shri Nilesh Keshavlal Patel 61,677 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given partial relief to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

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

23,106 Total 3,85,28,023 ITA.Nos.2365/Ahd/2018&5 others A.Y.2013-14 3 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's action in further reducing the quantum of deduction u/s.80-IC in respect of the Baddi Unit by allocating additional administrative expenses of Rs.2

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-\n13 & 2013-14 filed by the assessee are partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee\nfor AY 2014-15 is allowed

va) of the Act.\n5.1 We find that, in this case, the amount was credited to the relevant account only\nafter the due date. We find that this issue already stands covered by the decision of the\nTribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.1872/Ahd/2016 (Order\ndated 30.06.2023). Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal

VISHAL PLASTOMERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

va) Rs. 3,341/- 5. Addition u/s 41(1) Rs.7,65,98,856/- 6. Disallowance of capital expenses Rs. 16,61,419/- 3. The assessee filed appeal against the order to the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the assessees appeal, confirming the disallowance of bad debts, the addition made u/s 41(1) of the Act and the disallowance