SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 14A(2). Merely writing in the assessment order that he is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee is not sufficient, but he has also to give reasons after examining the accounts of the assessee that the claim of disallowance made by the assessee is not enough or is not adequately related to exempted income. The compliance

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 14A(2). Merely writing in the assessment order that he is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee is not sufficient, but he has also to give reasons after examining the accounts of the assessee that the claim of disallowance made by the assessee is not enough or is not adequately related to exempted income. The compliance

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

237 17 2 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has made some investments which earned exempt income, therefore the AO applied the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules to compute the disallowance under Section

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

237 17 2 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has made some investments which earned exempt income, therefore the AO applied the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules to compute the disallowance under Section

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

237 17 2 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has made some investments which earned exempt income, therefore the AO applied the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules to compute the disallowance under Section

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

237 17 2 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has made some investments which earned exempt income, therefore the AO applied the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules to compute the disallowance under Section

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

237 17 2 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has made some investments which earned exempt income, therefore the AO applied the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules to compute the disallowance under Section

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

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with sections 198 and 309 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment year 1979-80 - Whether when vehicles belonging to an assessee-company are used by its directors, for personal or other purposes, it would be wrong to hold that vehicles are personally used by company, because

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 14A of the Act and during the original assessment, disallowance was made only upto Rs.34,08,859/- restricting the extent of exempted income. Therefore, as per the case of the revenue, the income Rs.4,78,99,237

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions confirmed by the learned CIT(A) which are detailed as under: Amount of quantum S. No. Nature of addition addition (in Rs.) TP upward adjustment on sale of drug 1 Pantoprazole 3,825,237,167 Disallowances

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions confirmed by the learned CIT(A) which are detailed as under: Amount of quantum S. No. Nature of addition addition (in Rs.) TP upward adjustment on sale of drug 1 Pantoprazole 3,825,237,167 Disallowances

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

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

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

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