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

275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains under sections 45, 48 and 112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the difference between

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

275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains under sections 45, 48 and 112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the difference between

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

275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains under sections 45, 48 and 112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the difference between

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

275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains under sections 45, 48 and 112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the difference between

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

275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains under sections 45, 48 and 112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the difference between

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)

275(Delhi); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 135(cal.); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 181 (Cal); Infrastructure Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2022) 141 taxmann.com 24(Panaji-Trib.); Jt. CIT v. Rare Enterprises (2021] 124 taxmann.com 71(Mum-Trib); Kodagu District Co-operative

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)

275(Delhi); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 135(cal.); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 181 (Cal); Infrastructure Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2022) 141 taxmann.com 24(Panaji-Trib.); Jt. CIT v. Rare Enterprises (2021] 124 taxmann.com 71(Mum-Trib); Kodagu District Co-operative

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)

275(Delhi); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 135(cal.); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 181 (Cal); Infrastructure Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2022) 141 taxmann.com 24(Panaji-Trib.); Jt. CIT v. Rare Enterprises (2021] 124 taxmann.com 71(Mum-Trib); Kodagu District Co-operative

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)

275(Delhi); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 135(cal.); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 181 (Cal); Infrastructure Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2022) 141 taxmann.com 24(Panaji-Trib.); Jt. CIT v. Rare Enterprises (2021] 124 taxmann.com 71(Mum-Trib); Kodagu District Co-operative

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

Appeal are dismissed

275 Taxman\n550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon'ble\nCourt held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act—\nincluding those governing computation of long-term capital gains under\nsections 45, 48 and 112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The\nHon'ble High Court further held that the difference between

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

Appeal are dismissed

275 Taxman\n550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon'ble\nCourt held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act—\nincluding those governing computation of long-term capital gains under\nsections 45, 48 and 112 continue to apply unless expressly overridden. The\nHon'ble High Court further held that the difference between

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

275/- being 50% of Rs. 1,24,72,950/-. The assessee has credited to profit and account by sale consideration of Rs. 6236475/-. (ii) From the assets of the balance sheet for AY 2012-13 that there was an agricultural land amounting to Rs. 1,73,25,167/- (including land purchased during the year R.S. no. 665/P/1

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

275/- on 28/2/2011 an amount of Rs. 14,61,06,496/- on 31/3/2011 were reflected as debit note for poor quality of FSG oil in the books of the appellant. The calculation done by the special auditor reflects that the debit note has been raised for trade margin of 1%, Further on the trade margin and rate difference amount

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

275/- on 28/2/2011 an amount of Rs. 14,61,06,496/- on 31/3/2011 were reflected as debit note for poor quality of FSG oil in the books of the appellant. The calculation done by the special auditor reflects that the debit note has been raised for trade margin of 1%, Further on the trade margin and rate difference amount

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

275/- on 28/2/2011 an amount of Rs. 14,61,06,496/- on 31/3/2011 were reflected as debit note for poor quality of FSG oil in the books of the appellant. The calculation done by the special auditor reflects that the debit note has been raised for trade margin of 1%, Further on the trade margin and rate difference amount

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

275/- on 28/2/2011 an amount of Rs. 14,61,06,496/- on 31/3/2011 were reflected as debit note for poor quality of FSG oil in the books of the appellant. The calculation done by the special auditor reflects that the debit note has been raised for trade margin of 1%, Further on the trade margin and rate difference amount

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324 (Del): 8. DCIT v. Smt. Indira D. Thakkar - (2022) 138 taxmann.com 428 (Mum); 9. DCIT v. Smt. Deval D. Thakkar - (2023) 148 taxmann.com

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324 (Del): 8. DCIT v. Smt. Indira D. Thakkar - (2022) 138 taxmann.com 428 (Mum); 9. DCIT v. Smt. Deval D. Thakkar - (2023) 148 taxmann.com

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324 (Del): 8. DCIT v. Smt. Indira D. Thakkar - (2022) 138 taxmann.com 428 (Mum); 9. DCIT v. Smt. Deval D. Thakkar - (2023) 148 taxmann.com