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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

10B 504 12 Disallowances of repair expenses 1,017,500 13 Disallowances of leave encashment 3,998,673 14 Disallowances under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

10B 504 12 Disallowances of repair expenses 1,017,500 13 Disallowances of leave encashment 3,998,673 14 Disallowances under section

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA vs. M/S. WEB GAZER SOFTWARE COMPANY,, VADODARA

disallowances of exemption by the AO under section 10B of the Act for Rs. 39,20,823/- without appreciating the judgment of Hon’ble supreme court in case of Goetze (India) [2006] 157 taxmann.com 1

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

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

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

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

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

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

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

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

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

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

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

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer invoking Section 80AC of the Act, noting that in terms of the said section the claim would have been allowable to the assessee even if the same is claimed in a belated or revised return, however, since the assessee having not filed a valid return of income in the instant case, such deduction

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

Appeal are dismissed

disallowance may be deleted.\n3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A)\nought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for\nindexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs.4,20,45,455/- from the book profit\nu/s.115JB of the Act. The lower

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

Appeal are dismissed

disallowance may be deleted.\n3.\nIn law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A)\nought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for\nindexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs.4,20,45,455/- from the book profit\nu/s.115JB of the Act. The lower

SHRI MAHUDI MADHUPURI JAIN NSM BHOJANSHALA & PRASHADI BHAVAN,,MAHUDI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, EXEMPTION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10B was 15.02.2021. Delay was condoned by CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad vide order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1048595203(1) dated 10.01.2023. However the Return of Income has also been filed late on 31/3/2021 against the due date of 15/2/2021, which has not been condoned. It is a trite law that if a thing is said to be done in a particular manner, it shall

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing exemption under section 11 of the Act. The Assessee filed Form 10B electronically in accordance with requirements of section 12A(1

TRILOKNATH VATSALYA VATIKA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT,CPC, BANGALORE PRESENT JAO- THE ITO, WARD-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1092/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Triloknath Vatsalya Vatika The Dy.Cit बनाम/ At Balva Cpc Bangalore. V/S. Nr. Tahuko Hotel Present Jao Kalol The Ito Ward-1(Exemption) Gandhinagar – 382 001 Ahmedabad-380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aants 5604 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10/03/2025 Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-Gwalior [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

1), denied the benefit of exemption under section 11 on the ground that Form No. 10B had not been Triloknath Vatsalya Vatika vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore Present JAO – The ITO Ward-1 € Asst. Year : 2017-18 filed within the specified date and accordingly treated the entire gross receipts as taxable income. We are of the considered viewthat the disallowance

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA