AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 2(15A) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 which defines ESOP to mean the option given to employees which gives them right to purchase or subscribe to securities at a future date but at a predetermined price. Therefore, the AO was correct in taking the view, the ITA Nos.142&143/Ahd/2024 & 48&49/Ahd/2024 Axis Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT & ACIT

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 2(15A) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 which defines ESOP to mean the option given to employees which gives them right to purchase or subscribe to securities at a future date but at a predetermined price. Therefore, the AO was correct in taking the view, the ITA Nos.142&143/Ahd/2024 & 48&49/Ahd/2024 Axis Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT & ACIT

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED, ELLISBRIDGE

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 2(15A) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 which defines ESOP to mean the option given to employees which gives them right to purchase or subscribe to securities at a future date but at a predetermined price. Therefore, the AO was correct in taking the view, the ITA Nos.142&143/Ahd/2024 & 48&49/Ahd/2024 Axis Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT & ACIT

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. AXIS BANK LTD, ELISBRIDGE

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 2(15A) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 which defines ESOP to mean the option given to employees which gives them right to purchase or subscribe to securities at a future date but at a predetermined price. Therefore, the AO was correct in taking the view, the ITA Nos.142&143/Ahd/2024 & 48&49/Ahd/2024 Axis Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT & ACIT

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

Section 28 of the Act CIT(A) has further noted that the A. O has failed to bring any material evidence on record to support its stand that the loss suffered by the Assessee was speculative loss. We further find that in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor the head notes of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET (DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

Section 28 of the Act CIT(A) has further noted that the A. O has failed to bring any material evidence on record to support its stand that the loss suffered by the Assessee was speculative loss. We further find that in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor the head notes of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court

ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

Section 28 of the Act CIT(A) has further noted that the A. O has failed to bring any material evidence on record to support its stand that the loss suffered by the Assessee was speculative loss. We further find that in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor the head notes of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

Section 28 of the Act CIT(A) has further noted that the A. O has failed to bring any material evidence on record to support its stand that the loss suffered by the Assessee was speculative loss. We further find that in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor the head notes of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court

TANVI SANDEEP MATHUR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 151 of the Act clearly demarcates the situation in which approval is required from different authorities and in the present case authorisation was required to be taken from the PCIT alone. The Addl. CIT had no locus standi in the present case and was, therefore, not competent to grant his satisfaction. It is established principle of law that

ATUL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarasst.Year 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2006-07 Atul Limited Dcit (Osd), Range-1 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Chambers Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Rasala Marg, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380009. Pan : Aabca 2390 M Asst.Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2006-07 & It(Tp)A No.1108/Ahd/2017 Asst.Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul Limited Ahmedabad. 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Chambers Rasala Marg, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad 380009. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

section 14A of the Act of Rs.50,84,881/-; disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs.47,87,776/- The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who in turn deleted the TP adjustment of Rs.1,21,60,877/- relating to commission paid to AE’s, TP adjustment of Rs.74,59,611/- on sales made

ATUL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarasst.Year 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2006-07 Atul Limited Dcit (Osd), Range-1 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Chambers Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Rasala Marg, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380009. Pan : Aabca 2390 M Asst.Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2006-07 & It(Tp)A No.1108/Ahd/2017 Asst.Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul Limited Ahmedabad. 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Chambers Rasala Marg, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad 380009. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

section 14A of the Act of Rs.50,84,881/-; disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs.47,87,776/- The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who in turn deleted the TP adjustment of Rs.1,21,60,877/- relating to commission paid to AE’s, TP adjustment of Rs.74,59,611/- on sales made

M/S. ATUL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

section 92CA of the Act. The said grounds read as under: “1. Ld. AO/ TPO/ DRP erred in law and on facts in determining upward adjustment of Rs. 1, 60, 31, 0507- in respect of international transaction without any legal and factual basis for the same. Such confirmation by Id. DRP of adjustment determined by TPO without independent application

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASHRITA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IE of the Act in Sikkim Unit on other incomes. 60. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed deduction of profit derived from Sikkim Unit under section 80-IE of the Act. As per the AO, there were certain incomes considered by the assessee eligible for deduction under section

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance\nof sub-contracting expenses.\n50. The alternate contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee that\nincriminating material found with sub-contractors ought to have\nbeen considered by the AO for initiating proceedings under section\n153C of the Act, needs to be rejected, for the very reason, that we\nhave held the incriminating material found with the third party

SHREEJI DEVELOPERS,VADODARA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT AT VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

disallowed to the firm, whereas, in the\npresent case, the interest has already been duly offered to tax by the\npartners in their respective returns for the year under consideration.\n7. The learned PCIT has erred in fact and in law in not dropping the\nproceedings initiated under Section 263, despite the fact that the\nconditions under Section

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

151 for leave encashment 3,998,673/- ITA No. 928 & 921/Ahd/2017 [Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.] A.Y. 2008-09 - 11 - Department 12 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

151 for leave encashment 3,998,673/- ITA No. 928 & 921/Ahd/2017 [Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.] A.Y. 2008-09 - 11 - Department 12 Disallowances under section