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

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

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, 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

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

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

Appeal are dismissed

gains must be considered as\npart of eligible income and recomputed the deduction under section 80-IE\naccordingly. Further, the assessee made additional claims during assessment\nproceedings namely exclusion of GST/excise refund from book profit and\ngrant of indexation while computing book profit u/s 115JB. The AO rejected\nthese claims on the ground that such relief could be claimed only

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

Appeal are dismissed

gains must be considered as\npart of eligible income and recomputed the deduction under section 80-IE\naccordingly. Further, the assessee made additional claims during assessment\nproceedings namely exclusion of GST/excise refund from book profit and\ngrant of indexation while computing book profit u/s 115JB. The AO rejected\nthese claims on the ground that such relief could be claimed only

NUTAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

section 5, refers to the total amount of income\nfrom whatever source derived, computed in accordance with the\nprovisions of the Act. The Statute does not carve out any exception\nexcluding capital gains or income under any other head for the limited\npurpose of computing this deduction. Therefore, when the law itself\nemploys the expression “total income” without qualification

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HIMATNAGAR, HIMATNAGAR vs. KALIDAS JIVABHAI PATEL, HIMATNAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Ward-1, बनाम/ Asian Parivar, V/S. Himatnagar. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D & C.O No.18/Ahd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Asian Parivar, बनाम/ Ward-1, V/S. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar. Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D

237 ITR 570 in support of his contentions. Allegations of synchronized trading and layering were denied, and it was IT No.934/Ahd/2024 with C.O No.18-Ahd-2024 ITO vs. Kalidas J Patel Asst. Year :2017-18 6 contended that no independent inquiry was made by the Assessing Officer to establish any collusive arrangement. The assessee specifically contended that once he had fully explained

VINODBHAI LAXMANBHAI PITHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ITO- WARD-1(2)(5)), VADODARA

In the result, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains or losses arising from such sale of shares. In the retraction statement, the assessee submitted that he had started the business of purchase and sale of shares during the impugned assessment year and the assessee had valued his closing stock of shares of public companies on the basis of “cost or market whichever is lower” and on such

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Gain (LTCG) may kindly be deleted and the direction given by the Ld. CIT (A) to the AO be quashed. 3. Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify.” (b) In ITA No.577/Ahd/2020 for AY 2015-16 “The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in partly allowing the appeal

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

Capital Infusion. 55. The TPO found that the assessee during the year has made payment of share application money to the following AEs: S. Name of AE Amount in Rs. Date of Date of share No. payment allotted 1 Zao Torrent Pharma 20,51,66,850/- 08-08-2012 28-03-2013 2 Zao Torrent Pharma

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

237(Kar); CIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P.) Ltd. (2021) 123 taxmann.com 38(Bom); Essilor India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 137 taxmann.com 60(Kar.); Pr. CIT v. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 222(Bom); Pr. CIT v. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. (2023) 146 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi); Pr. CIT v. TV Today Network

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

237(Kar); CIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P.) Ltd. (2021) 123 taxmann.com 38(Bom); Essilor India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 137 taxmann.com 60(Kar.); Pr. CIT v. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 222(Bom); Pr. CIT v. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. (2023) 146 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi); Pr. CIT v. TV Today Network

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

237(Kar); CIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P.) Ltd. (2021) 123 taxmann.com 38(Bom); Essilor India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 137 taxmann.com 60(Kar.); Pr. CIT v. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 222(Bom); Pr. CIT v. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. (2023) 146 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi); Pr. CIT v. TV Today Network

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

237(Kar); CIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P.) Ltd. (2021) 123 taxmann.com 38(Bom); Essilor India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 137 taxmann.com 60(Kar.); Pr. CIT v. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 222(Bom); Pr. CIT v. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. (2023) 146 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi); Pr. CIT v. TV Today Network

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)

237 ITR 579 and Liberty India -Vs- CIT reported in 317 ITR 218. The above disallowance of deduction was upheld by CIT (Appeal) in his order, wherein he has observed that identical issue has been decided against the erstwhile Sun Pharma, Sikkim [SPS] by CIT(Appeals)-37, Mumbai, for A.Y. 2010-11 following the order of Hon’ble ITAT

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)

237 ITR 579 and Liberty India -Vs- CIT reported in 317 ITR 218. The above disallowance of deduction was upheld by CIT (Appeal) in his order, wherein he has observed that identical issue has been decided against the erstwhile Sun Pharma, Sikkim [SPS] by CIT(Appeals)-37, Mumbai, for A.Y. 2010-11 following the order of Hon’ble ITAT