ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

269/- C. Capital Gain – [as per Return of income] Rs. 11,37,32,825/- D. Income from other sources [as per Return of income] Rs. 80,07,21,966/- Assessed Income Rs.18,14,03,03,585/- Brought forward losses of Rs. 2,41,44,65,028, Rs. NIL for A.Y. 2013-14 Adjusted fully by the Dept. while passing order

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Capital Gains – sale of factory land rejection of fair market value\nas at 1.4.1981 adopted as per valuer's report.\nوو\nGround No.1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding salary and wages of\npackart press division of Rs.28,78,876/-\n50.\nWe observe that while dealing similar ground of appeal for A.Y.\n2011-12, we have set-aside the matter

THE ASST. CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains – sale of factory land rejection of fair market value as at 1.4.1981 adopted as per valuer’s report.” Ground No.1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding salary and wages of packart press division of Rs. 28,78,876/- 50. We observe that while dealing similar ground of appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, we have set-aside the matter

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains – sale of factory land rejection of fair market value as at 1.4.1981 adopted as per valuer’s report.” Ground No.1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding salary and wages of packart press division of Rs. 28,78,876/- 50. We observe that while dealing similar ground of appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, we have set-aside the matter

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Capital Gains – sale of factory land rejection of fair market value\nas at 1.4.1981 adopted as per valuer's report.\nدو\nGround No.1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding salary and wages of\npackart press division of Rs.28,78,876/-\n50. We observe that while dealing similar ground of appeal for A.Y.\n2011-12, we have set-aside the matter

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital assets. Thus, prior to the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 the same has to be allowed by the Revenue. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the same and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Thus, Ground No. 1 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 8. Ground No. 2: Whether

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

VIRANG JAYENDRABHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 24 of the Act was disallowed and added back to the taxable income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has returned the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.16

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)

269/- 2. Ground No.2. Disallowance of expenditure incurred for doctors for promotion of business - Rs.9,81,46,332/- 3. Ground No.3. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D -Rs.69,89,859/- 4. Ground No.4. Disallowance of amortization of Intangibles under section 115JB Rs 15,23,97,50,000/- 5. Ground No.5 Disallowance of stamp duty charges Rs.28

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)

269/- 2. Ground No.2. Disallowance of expenditure incurred for doctors for promotion of business - Rs.9,81,46,332/- 3. Ground No.3. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D -Rs.69,89,859/- 4. Ground No.4. Disallowance of amortization of Intangibles under section 115JB Rs 15,23,97,50,000/- 5. Ground No.5 Disallowance of stamp duty charges Rs.28

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

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

capital, and the receiver receives it as income on his part, the entire receipt is taxable in the hands of the receiver (CIT vs. Kamal Behri Lai Singha (1971) 82 ITU 460,462(SC). ITA Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 Shri Mukesh Rasklal Shah Vs. ACIT Asst. Year :1992-93 & 1993-94 - 16– (e) State bank of Travancore

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

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

capital, and the receiver receives it as income on his part, the entire receipt is taxable in the hands of the receiver (CIT vs. Kamal Behri Lai Singha (1971) 82 ITU 460,462(SC). ITA Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 Shri Mukesh Rasklal Shah Vs. ACIT Asst. Year :1992-93 & 1993-94 - 16– (e) State bank of Travancore