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

capital 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

capital 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

capital 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

capital 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

capital 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

SHAILESH NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19

capital gain of Rs.6,96,236/- to tax. Penalty proceedings under section 270A were also initiated for misreporting of income

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

Appeal are dismissed

capital 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

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

Appeal are dismissed

capital 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

PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain amounting to Rs. 22,20,156/- by filing return of income and if, the case of the assessee was not reopened under Section 147 of the Act, the assessee would not have reported the escaped amount and then, the said amount would have escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

capital gain on sale of 80,00,000 shares donated to the assessee trust, was avoided by the trustee by making this arrangement, was not denied. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the claim of exemption under Section

ASHOKBHAI KHODABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain arising on sale of property and, therefore, the returned income was accepted vide assessment order under section 147/144B of the Act dated 24.03.2022. Since the assessee did not file his original return of income, penalty proceeding under section 270A

HASMUKHLAL ISHVARLAL PATEL,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains" and added it back to the income of the assessee. The assessment was completed on ex-parte basis under section 144 of the Act at a total income of ₹18,85,140/-. Penalty proceedings under Sections 270A

HASMUKHLAL ISHVARLAL PATEL,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains" and added it back to the income of the assessee. The assessment was completed on ex-parte basis under section 144 of the Act at a total income of ₹18,85,140/-. Penalty proceedings under Sections 270A

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain on sale of 80,00,000 shares donated to\nthe assessee trust, was avoided by the trustee by making this\narrangement, was not denied. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) had\nrightly invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the\nclaim of exemption under Section

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain on sale of 80,00,000 shares donated to\nthe assessee trust, was avoided by the trustee by making this\narrangement, was not denied. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) had\nrightly invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the\nclaim of exemption under Section

KRUNAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

capital gains earned by it and invested in the acquisition of new asset. The assessee’s only fault was in relation to the calculation of claim of deduction. The assessee’s case also does not fall within any other clauses of Sub-section (9) of Section 270A

ASHOK AMARNATH AGRAWAL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain which is totally contrary to the facts on record, which goes to prove that the Assessing Officer has not examined the income-tax return which is a primary document to be examined before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from latches and devoid of due diligence. Hence

ASHOK AMARNATH AGRAWAL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain which is totally contrary to the facts on record, which goes to prove that the Assessing Officer has not examined the income-tax return which is a primary document to be examined before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from latches and devoid of due diligence. Hence