SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80IE, and accordingly the A.O. had correctly disallowed deduction u/s. 80IE of Rs.13,61,50,69,980/- II(d) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that the claim of the appellant in respect of deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act is within the purview of the provisions

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A), which mandates that the contents of such impounded documents are to be presumed to be true. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by invoking and travelling to the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A), which mandates that the contents of such impounded documents are to be presumed to be true. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by invoking and travelling to the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A), which mandates that the contents of such impounded documents are to be presumed to be true. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by invoking and travelling to the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A), which mandates that the contents of such impounded documents are to be presumed to be true. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by invoking and travelling to the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A of the Act where the statements of various persons representing the assessee were recorded to that effect. Besides, the copy of the revised return for the year under consideration was also discovered during the survey proceedings wherein the assessee has shown income chargeable to tax amounting to " 28,66,44,640/- in which no deduction under section

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A of the Act where the statements of various persons representing the assessee were recorded to that effect. Besides, the copy of the revised return for the year under consideration was also discovered during the survey proceedings wherein the assessee has shown income chargeable to tax amounting to " 28,66,44,640/- in which no deduction under section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A of the Act where the statements of various persons representing the assessee were recorded to that effect. Besides, the copy of the revised return for the year under consideration was also discovered during the survey proceedings wherein the assessee has shown income chargeable to tax amounting to " 28,66,44,640/- in which no deduction under section

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A of the Act where the statements of various persons representing the assessee were recorded to that effect. Besides, the copy of the revised return for the year under consideration was also discovered during the survey proceedings wherein the assessee has shown income chargeable to tax amounting to " 28,66,44,640/- in which no deduction under section

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A of the Act where the statements of various persons representing the assessee were recorded to that effect. Besides, the copy of the revised return for the year under consideration was also discovered during the survey proceedings wherein the assessee has shown income chargeable to tax amounting to " 28,66,44,640/- in which no deduction under section

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A of the Act where the statements of various persons representing the assessee were recorded to that effect. Besides, the copy of the revised return for the year under consideration was also discovered during the survey proceedings wherein the assessee has shown income chargeable to tax amounting to " 28,66,44,640/- in which no deduction under section

SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

disallowance calls for no interference. Accordingly, the related grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 15. Now we deal with cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19. 15.1 Common facts are such that a search and survey action under sections 132 and 133A

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

disallowance of Rs.44,06,950/- made u/s 40A (3) of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 50,48,500/- being under-statement of closing stock. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of Rs.2,21,51,688/-.” 7. The learned DR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings in assessee’s case for AY 2000-01, a survey under Section 133A

M/S. MADHU SILICA PVT. LTD.,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 M/S Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T., Plot No.147, Gidc, Vs. Circle-1, Vartej, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364060

disallowing the deduction of Rs.3,50,00,000/- claimed u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. 12. The AO received the information that there was a survey under section 133A

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 132 or 133A of the Act. In the present case, the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the delayed deposit of employees' contributions to PF and ESI for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 fall under unabated assessment years, as no proceedings were pending for these years when the search was initiated

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 132 or 133A of the Act. In the present case, the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the delayed deposit of employees' contributions to PF and ESI for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 fall under unabated assessment years, as no proceedings were pending for these years when the search was initiated

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BHAILALBHAI A.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

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

disallowance on account of expenses of Rs. 2,08,000/-, Vehicle Expenses of Rs. 1,17,840/- and telephone expenses of Rs. 18,180/- made by the AO. 3.1 The brief facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of Government approved engineers and contractors. There was a survey operation under section 133A

THE ITO, WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BHAILALBHAI A.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

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

disallowance on account of expenses of Rs. 2,08,000/-, Vehicle Expenses of Rs. 1,17,840/- and telephone expenses of Rs. 18,180/- made by the AO. 3.1 The brief facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of Government approved engineers and contractors. There was a survey operation under section 133A