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

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

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

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

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

Appeal are dismissed

35B(1A),\ntherefore, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section\n35B(1A). [Para 68]\"\n17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the\nSupreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where\nthe language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further,\nin Orissa State

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

Appeal are dismissed

35B(1A),\ntherefore, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section\n35B(1A). [Para 68]\"\n17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the\nSupreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where\nthe language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further,\nin Orissa State

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

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

disallowed U/S.14A as per para 6 14,00,410/- 4) Irrecoverable balance written off as per para 7 16,26,668/- 5) Bad as per para 8 7,61,883/- Rs. 5,75,53,262/- Revised business income: Rs. 1,94,97,014/- Short term capital gain Rs. 1,78,55,920/- Income from House Property