DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

1), has to be determined as per the formula stipulated in Sub-Section (4), otherwise Sub-section (4) would become otise and irrelevant. The issue in question in this appeal which pertains to the Assessment Year 2009-10, relates to duty draw back in the form of DEPB benefits. As per Section 28, clause

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

1), has to be determined as per the formula stipulated in Sub-Section (4), otherwise Sub-section (4) would become otise and irrelevant. The issue in question in this appeal which pertains to the Assessment Year 2009-10, relates to duty draw back in the form of DEPB benefits. As per Section 28, clause

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

1), has to be determined as per the formula stipulated in Sub-Section (4), otherwise Sub-section (4) would become otise and irrelevant. The issue in question in this appeal which pertains to the Assessment Year 2009-10, relates to duty draw back in the form of DEPB benefits. As per Section 28, clause

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

1), has to be determined as per the formula stipulated in Sub-Section (4), otherwise Sub-section (4) would become otise and irrelevant. The issue in question in this appeal which pertains to the Assessment Year 2009-10, relates to duty draw back in the form of DEPB benefits. As per Section 28, clause

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

1), has to be determined as per the formula stipulated in Sub-Section (4), otherwise Sub-section (4) would become otise and irrelevant. The issue in question in this appeal which pertains to the Assessment Year 2009-10, relates to duty draw back in the form of DEPB benefits. As per Section 28, clause

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

10B(1)(c) defines the cost plus method, i.e. CPM, as follows: Cost plus method, by which,- (i) the direct and indirect costs of production incurred by the enterprise in respect of property transferred or services provided to an associated enterprise, are determined; (ii) the amount of a normal gross profit mark-up to such costs (computed according

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

10B(1)(c) defines the cost plus method, i.e. CPM, as follows: Cost plus method, by which,- (i) the direct and indirect costs of production incurred by the enterprise in respect of property transferred or services provided to an associated enterprise, are determined; (ii) the amount of a normal gross profit mark-up to such costs (computed according

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

10B(1)(c) defines the cost plus method, i.e. CPM, as follows: Cost plus method, by which,- (i) the direct and indirect costs of production incurred by the enterprise in respect of property transferred or services provided to an associated enterprise, are determined; (ii) the amount of a normal gross profit mark-up to such costs (computed according

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