THE ARVIND LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 862/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 Arvind Ltd.(Earlier Known As Arvind A.C.I.T., Mills Ltd.), Vs. Circle-1, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad. Naroda, Ahmedabad.

disallowed under section 1A A. Therefore disallowance under section 14 A is necessary. Coming to the method of computing disallowance

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 of ₹9,35,31,350 made by the Assessing Officer on account of reallocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit. 12. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground Number 2: The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exclusion of Excise duty refund amounting Rs. 19,66,92,733/- received by the appellant

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 of ₹9,35,31,350 made by the Assessing Officer on account of reallocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit. 12. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground Number 2: The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exclusion of Excise duty refund amounting Rs. 19,66,92,733/- received by the appellant

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 of ₹9,35,31,350 made by the Assessing Officer on account of reallocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit. 12. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground Number 2: The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exclusion of Excise duty refund amounting Rs. 19,66,92,733/- received by the appellant

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 of ₹9,35,31,350 made by the Assessing Officer on account of reallocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit. 12. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground Number 2: The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exclusion of Excise duty refund amounting Rs. 19,66,92,733/- received by the appellant

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 of ₹9,35,31,350 made by the Assessing Officer on account of reallocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit. 12. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground Number 2: The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exclusion of Excise duty refund amounting Rs. 19,66,92,733/- received by the appellant

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 of ₹9,35,31,350 made by the Assessing Officer on account of reallocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit. 12. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground Number 2: The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exclusion of Excise duty refund amounting Rs. 19,66,92,733/- received by the appellant

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance made by the AO. The assessee has been granted deduction in three years. 6. Before us, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the AO. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that this issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s judgment rendered in the case of Motorola India Electronis P.Ltd

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance made by the AO. The assessee has been granted deduction in three years. 6. Before us, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the AO. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that this issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s judgment rendered in the case of Motorola India Electronis P.Ltd

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AUSOM ENTERPRISE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance made by the AO. The assessee has been granted deduction in three years. 6. Before us, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the AO. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that this issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s judgment rendered in the case of Motorola India Electronis P.Ltd

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

1A) of Section 149 of the Act indicates that the condition of a minimum amount of Rs. 50 lakhs of income escaping assessment, may be satisfied by the cumulative amount that has escaped assessment or is likely to escape assessment in respect of more than one assessment year exceeding the said amount. However, the same is subject to the condition

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

1A) of Section 149 of the Act\nindicates that the condition of a minimum amount of Rs.50 lakhs of\nincome escaping assessment, may be satisfied by the cumulative\namount that has escaped assessment or is likely to escape assessment\nin respect of more than one assessment year exceeding the said\namount. However, the same is subject to the condition that

JAYSHREEBEN JAYANTIBHAI PALSANA,LIMBADIYA, BOTAD, GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 1(9) BHAVANAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

1A), provided the total income does not exceed the threshold. 2.4 The return was processed by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, and intimation under section 143(1) was issued on 28.02.2025, whereby the assessee's claim of rebate under section 87A was disallowed

HESTER BIOSCIENCE LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1A) or 206C(7) amounting to ₹98,791/- was payable. However, this amount was not disallowed while computing the total income, nor was it disallowed by the A.O. during assessment. Second, the assessee had claimed a deduction of ₹1,32,40,376/- under section

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

Appeal are dismissed

disallowance of ₹9,35,31,350 made by\nthe Assessing Officer on account of reallocation of employee benefit\nexpenses to the Guwahati Unit.\n12. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.\nGround Number 2: The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exclusion\nof Excise duty refund amounting Rs.19,66,92,733/- received by the\nappellant

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

Appeal are dismissed

disallowance of ₹9,35,31,350 made by\nthe Assessing Officer on account of reallocation of employee benefit\nexpenses to the Guwahati Unit.\n12. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.\nGround Number 2: The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exclusion\nof Excise duty refund amounting Rs.19,66,92,733/- received by\nthe appellant

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

disallowance under section 14A, while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. 10. Learned representatives fairly agree that the above issue is now covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Alembic Ltd [judgment dated 20.7.2016 in Tax Appeal

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

disallowance under section 14A, while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. 10. Learned representatives fairly agree that the above issue is now covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Alembic Ltd [judgment dated 20.7.2016 in Tax Appeal