DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

PARIMAL CHANDRAKANT ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16. I.T.A No. 283/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Parimal Chandrakant Zaveri vs. Pr.CIT 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 548 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. This appeal is filed

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

244A amounting to Rs. 31,54,290/-. The refund pertained to assessment year 2008-09 and was received by the assesee on 27.07.2012. All these facts emanate from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and have not been disputed/controverted before us. That interest Income Tax refund is taxable is not in dispute. The only issue is whether

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

244A amounting to Rs. 31,54,290/-. The refund pertained to assessment year 2008-09 and was received by the assesee on 27.07.2012. All these facts emanate from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and have not been disputed/controverted before us. That interest Income Tax refund is taxable is not in dispute. The only issue is whether

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

Gain/ Loss on transfer of leasehold land alongwith building at Jejuri in the assessment year under consideration. 13.1 That the Ld. AO / DRP erred in not accepting/considering the valuation report certified by an independent valuer in respect of the leasehold land transferred by the appellant. 14. That the Ld.AO/DRP erred on facts and in law in disallowing

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

Gain/ Loss on transfer of leasehold land alongwith building at Jejuri in the assessment year under consideration. 13.1 That the Ld. AO / DRP erred in not accepting/considering the valuation report certified by an independent valuer in respect of the leasehold land transferred by the appellant. 14. That the Ld.AO/DRP erred on facts and in law in disallowing

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

244A of the Act amounting to Rs.19,32,350/-. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.64,67,783/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.38,840/ in respect of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act relating to the late payment of PF/ESIC payment. The Assessing Officer assessed the income

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

244A of the Act amounting to Rs.19,32,350/-. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.64,67,783/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.38,840/ in respect of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act relating to the late payment of PF/ESIC payment. The Assessing Officer assessed the income

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate penalty proceeding

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate penalty proceeding

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate penalty proceeding

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate penalty proceeding

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate penalty proceeding

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted