THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed by the AO for lack of evidence and substantiation, and also since the assessee was unable to prove that the assessee was in fact incurred for the in-house R&D facility. ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 21 35. Before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee filed additional evidence of all the invoices

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed by the AO for lack of evidence and substantiation, and also since the assessee was unable to prove that the assessee was in fact incurred for the in-house R&D facility. ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 21 35. Before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee filed additional evidence of all the invoices

VARUN SATYAPAL SINGHAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3( NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

Section 40A(2)(b) would not permit disallowance when there was no finding the effect that the labour charges paid were in excess of the fair market charges and that the authorities below disallowed the labour charges without ascertaining the fair market value of the same.” 12.3. Accordingly, in view of the facts of the instant case, we observe that

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

disallowed the same and added it to the total income. The AO also recorded that despite giving multiple opportunities, the assessee could not substantiate the entry with supporting documents, thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act were separately initiated on this issue. 59. In appeal, the assessee

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

section 68 and also deleted the\nrelated disallowance of Rs.92,603/- towards interest.\n96.\nThe Revenue is in appeal, contending that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition on the basis of additional evidence without affording\nany opportunity to the Assessing Officer, thereby violating the provisions of\nRule 46A

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

section 37 of the Act. 14.2 The assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the additions as were made by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) observed that partly expenses were incurred for public issue and the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35D to the tune of 20% , which the assessee is entitled to claim deduction which

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

section 37 of the Act. 14.2 The assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the additions as were made by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) observed that partly expenses were incurred for public issue and the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35D to the tune of 20% , which the assessee is entitled to claim deduction which

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

section 37 of the Act. 14.2 The assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the additions as were made by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) observed that partly expenses were incurred for public issue and the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35D to the tune of 20% , which the assessee is entitled to claim deduction which

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

disallowing Rs.37,514/- U/S.14A while calculating book profit u/s. 115JB. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of making anaddition of Rs.5,48,9277- as proposed by TPO on account of interest free loans and advances toLamda Therapeutic Ltd., UK. 4. Both

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

disallowing Rs.37,514/- U/S.14A while calculating book profit u/s. 115JB. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of making anaddition of Rs.5,48,9277- as proposed by TPO on account of interest free loans and advances toLamda Therapeutic Ltd., UK. 4. Both

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing Rs.37,514/- U/S.14A while calculating book profit u/s. 115JB. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of making anaddition of Rs.5,48,9277- as proposed by TPO on account of interest free loans and advances toLamda Therapeutic Ltd., UK. 4. Both

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing Rs.37,514/- U/S.14A while calculating book profit u/s. 115JB. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of making anaddition of Rs.5,48,9277- as proposed by TPO on account of interest free loans and advances toLamda Therapeutic Ltd., UK. 4. Both

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

disallowing Rs.37,514/- U/S.14A while calculating book profit u/s. 115JB. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of making anaddition of Rs.5,48,9277- as proposed by TPO on account of interest free loans and advances toLamda Therapeutic Ltd., UK. 4. Both

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

disallowing Rs.37,514/- U/S.14A while calculating book profit u/s. 115JB. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of making anaddition of Rs.5,48,9277- as proposed by TPO on account of interest free loans and advances toLamda Therapeutic Ltd., UK. 4. Both

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowances made by the AO against which the Revenue was in appeal before the ITAT in ITA No. 3541/Mum/2015 which has been vide order dated 16th May 2019 decided in the favour of the assessee. Thus, once the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction under section 80IE is upheld in the first year of claim, the same cannot

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. H V INFRATEX LTD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1034/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assistant Cit H.V. Infratex Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(1) 202, Parth Milan Complex V/S. Ahmedabad Nr. Hotel Nest,Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabch 6794 C (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30 /01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2023, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 10/12/2018 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Asstt. Cit Vs. H.V. Infratex Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17

Section 37 of the Act by disallowing 25% of total other expenses of Rs.23,70,14,534/-, on the ground that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim with supporting documents. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) challenging the ad-hoc disallowance. The assessee submitted additional evidence under Rule 46A

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section 2(15) of the IT Act is not applicable to the case

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section 2(15) of the IT Act is not applicable to the case