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)

270A(9) of the Act so as to justify the levy of penalty in terms of the said Section on the assessee. 9. The facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed deduction of capital gains

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

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

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

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

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

section 270A were also initiated for misreporting of income. 3 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated that the stamp duty of Rs.48,000/- was the value of the stamp paper used for the purchase deed, and sufficient evidence had been furnished to substantiate the same. With respect

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

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

9,51,796/- as income chargeable under the head "Long Term 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

9,51,796/- as income chargeable under the head "Long Term 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

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

9)(a) of the Act by AO is unjustified.” Facts of the case 13. Ground nos.1 to 5 pertain to denial of exemption under Section 11 & 12 of the Act by invoking provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act read with Section 13(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had denied the 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 of the Act was initiated for under- reporting of income. Thereafter, a separate penalty order under section 270A dated

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

9)(a) of the Act by AO is\nunjustified.\"\n\nFacts of the case\n\n13. Ground nos.1 to 5 pertain to denial of exemption under Section 11\n& 12 of the Act by invoking provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act read\nwith Section 13(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had denied the\nexemption under

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

9)(a) of the Act by AO is\nunjustified.\"\n\nFacts of the case\n\n13.\nGround nos.1 to 5 pertain to denial of exemption under Section 11\n& 12 of the Act by invoking provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act read\nwith Section 13(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had denied the\nexemption under

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

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The reasons recorded for reopening are as under:- “Information documents available with this office in the case the assessee: As per information available on records, a search action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on 05.02.2019 in the case of Kushal group. During

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

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The reasons recorded for reopening are as under:- “Information documents available with this office in the case the assessee: As per information available on records, a search action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on 05.02.2019 in the case of Kushal group. During