JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital expenditure not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 7.2 Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who relied on the decisions of Ld. CIT(A) for the preceding years i.e. AYs 2008- 09 to 2010-11, deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,57,98,657/- on account of product registration. 7.3 We find that

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

section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with the assessee’s claim that long-term 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

section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with the assessee’s claim that long-term capital gains

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

section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with the assessee’s claim that long-term capital gains

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

section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with the assessee’s claim that long-term capital gains

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

section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with the assessee’s claim that long-term capital gains

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

section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with the assessee’s claim that long-term capital gains

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

Appeal are dismissed

section 43B\nrelief is not available for employees' contribution deposited beyond due date.\nThe AO also dealt with the assessee's claim that long-term capital gains

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

Appeal are dismissed

section 43B\nrelief is not available for employees' contribution deposited beyond due date.\nThe AO also dealt with the assessee's claim that long-term capital gains

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

Gain of Rs.15,98,49,917/- and Rs.24,01,43,981/- in AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively as being capital in nature. Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard for both the years merit no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. ITA Nos. 109-113 & 116-118/Ahd/2020 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

Gain of Rs.15,98,49,917/- and Rs.24,01,43,981/- in AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively as being capital in nature. Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard for both the years merit no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. ITA Nos. 109-113 & 116-118/Ahd/2020 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

Gain of Rs.15,98,49,917/- and Rs.24,01,43,981/- in AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively as being capital in nature. Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard for both the years merit no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. ITA Nos. 109-113 & 116-118/Ahd/2020 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

Gain of Rs.15,98,49,917/- and Rs.24,01,43,981/- in AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively as being capital in nature. Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard for both the years merit no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. ITA Nos. 109-113 & 116-118/Ahd/2020 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

Gain of Rs.15,98,49,917/- and Rs.24,01,43,981/- in AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively as being capital in nature. Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard for both the years merit no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. ITA Nos. 109-113 & 116-118/Ahd/2020 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

Gain of Rs.15,98,49,917/- and Rs.24,01,43,981/- in AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively as being capital in nature. Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard for both the years merit no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. ITA Nos. 109-113 & 116-118/Ahd/2020 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

Gain of Rs.15,98,49,917/- and Rs.24,01,43,981/- in AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively as being capital in nature. Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard for both the years merit no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. ITA Nos. 109-113 & 116-118/Ahd/2020 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

Gain of Rs.15,98,49,917/- and Rs.24,01,43,981/- in AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively as being capital in nature. Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard for both the years merit no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. ITA Nos. 109-113 & 116-118/Ahd/2020 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-19

Capital Gain. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer has disallowed expenses at 7.5% on account of payment to channel partners/retail promotion expenses as grouped under the head other selling and distribution expenses, though the said entire expenses of payment of channel partners should have been disallowed. Accordingly, the PCIT issued notice under Section 263 of the Act dated 01.02.2024. ((((((In response

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is also allowed for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer has disallowed expenses at 7.5% on account of payment to channel partners/retail promotion expenses as grouped under the head other selling and distribution expenses, though the said entire expenses of payment of channel partners should have been disallowed. Accordingly, the PCIT issued notice under Section 263 of the Act dated 01.02.2024. ((((((In response