PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

disallowance of Rs.9,01,100/-. We, therefore, uphold the order of the\nCIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue's grounds.\nIssue - 8 - Addition on account of Trade Payable of Rs.1,49,349/- in A.Y.\n2013-14\n85.\nThe addition of Rs.1,49,349/- has been made by the Assessing Officer\nunder section 68 of the Act on the ground that

M/S. NIRMA CREDIT & CAPITAL P. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Itat, Ahmedabad Regarding Disallowances Made Under Section 14A Of The Act. The Itat Vide Order Dated 15-03-2003 Allowed Substantial Relief To The Assessee & Restored The Matter Back To The File Of The Assessing Officer With The Following Observations:

disallowance could be made under section 14A where assessee's interest-free funds far exceeded its interest-free investments. In the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd [2014] 42 taxmann.com 270

ITO, WARD-1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR vs. GELOT AGRI EXPORTS, PALANPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

disallowances of expenses on which the assessee had failed to deduct TDS ,in terms of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee was noted to have made payment amounting to Rs.15,09,50,972/- without deducting TDS, and therefore, applying provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% of the said amount of Rs.15.09

GELOT AGRI EXPORTS,DEESA vs. ITO WD 1 PALANPUR, BANASKANTHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

disallowances of expenses on which the assessee had failed to deduct TDS ,in terms of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee was noted to have made payment amounting to Rs.15,09,50,972/- without deducting TDS, and therefore, applying provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% of the said amount of Rs.15.09

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

disallowance of Rs. 9,01,100/-. We, therefore, uphold the order of the\nCIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue's grounds.\nIssue - 8 - Addition on account of Trade Payable of Rs. 1,49,349/- in A.Y.\n2013-14\n85. The addition of Rs. 1,49,349/- has been made by the Assessing Officer\nunder section

DEEP INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

disallowance could be made under section 14A where assessee's interest-free funds far exceeded its interest-free investments. In the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd[2014] 42 taxmann.com 270

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

disallowance of Rs.9,01,100/-. We, therefore, uphold the order of the\nCIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue's grounds.\nIssue - 8 - Addition on account of Trade Payable of Rs.1,49,349/- in A.Y.\n2013-14\n85.\nThe addition of Rs.1,49,349/- has been made by the Assessing Officer\nunder section 68 of the Act on the ground that

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

disallowance under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The Mumbai ITAT in the above case made the following observations: “9. The operative phrase here is "on in-house research and development facility as approved by the prescribed authority …….", the word "facility" has been hereby show us to emphasis the point that it is the unit which requires approval

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

disallowance in absence of non establishment of any nexus between R&D facilities and other units. We find that the authorities below have nowhere arrived at such a nexus in instant case as well. We therefore delete the impugned allocation by adopting the above discussed reasoning. The assesses succeeds in its substantive ground," 6.6 In view of the aforestated facts

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

disallowance in absence of non establishment of any nexus between R&D facilities and other units. We find that the authorities below have nowhere arrived at such a nexus in instant case as well. We therefore delete the impugned allocation by adopting the above discussed reasoning. The assesses succeeds in its substantive ground," 6.6 In view of the aforestated facts

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 115JB of the Act. Hence, the ground no.4 of the assessee company is hereby allowed. 12. Ground No. 5 of the Appeal relates to disallowance of Stamp Duty charges of Rs.28,00,000/- being capital in nature on the share expenses pursuant to the terms of Court sanctioned Scheme of Arrangement. The Ld AO at para

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 115JB of the Act. Hence, the ground no.4 of the assessee company is hereby allowed. 12. Ground No. 5 of the Appeal relates to disallowance of Stamp Duty charges of Rs.28,00,000/- being capital in nature on the share expenses pursuant to the terms of Court sanctioned Scheme of Arrangement. The Ld AO at para

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

section 1.1275-4(c), Income Tax Regulations. This provision is a deduction provision and not a provision relating to determination of arm's length price. Nothing, therefore, turns on this decision. In any event, it is nobody's case that the transaction before us is of the debt. The case of the assessee is that since in consideration of this

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

section 1.1275-4(c), Income Tax Regulations. This provision is a deduction provision and not a provision relating to determination of arm's length price. Nothing, therefore, turns on this decision. In any event, it is nobody's case that the transaction before us is of the debt. The case of the assessee is that since in consideration of this

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

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

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

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

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

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

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

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015