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

801B (8A) of the Act. 5. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 2,33,374/- as rent advance not returned back without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to deductTDS on such, rent advances in terms of Section 194 I of the Act and therefore, the said amount was disallowable

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

801B (8A) of the Act. 5. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 2,33,374/- as rent advance not returned back without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to deductTDS on such, rent advances in terms of Section 194 I of the Act and therefore, the said amount was disallowable

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

801B (8A) of the Act. 5. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 2,33,374/- as rent advance not returned back without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to deductTDS on such, rent advances in terms of Section 194 I of the Act and therefore, the said amount was disallowable

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

801B (8A) of the Act. 5. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 2,33,374/- as rent advance not returned back without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to deductTDS on such, rent advances in terms of Section 194 I of the Act and therefore, the said amount was disallowable

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

801B (8A) of the Act. 5. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 2,33,374/- as rent advance not returned back without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to deductTDS on such, rent advances in terms of Section 194 I of the Act and therefore, the said amount was disallowable

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee is in the nature of income as assessee could not demonstrate

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee is in the nature of income as assessee could not demonstrate

ROTOFILT ENGINEERS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: This Tribunal. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company

disallowed by the appellant during the course of the set aside proceedings. The appellant had also submitted a list of plant and machinery duly classifying identifying it between R&D and non R&D assets, as can be seen from the Annexure-12 being submitted herewith this submission. The said annexure was already submitted before the learned AO vide

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

disallowing claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(9) 11,7187,247/- without taking proper cognizance of the order of the Gujarat High Court and not following the same on the ground that Department has filed appeal to the Supreme Court is submitted it be so held now. 2.1 The learned AO has erred in stating that amended Explanation to 80IB

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

disallowing claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(9) 11,7187,247/- without taking proper cognizance of the order of the Gujarat High Court and not following the same on the ground that Department has filed appeal to the Supreme Court is submitted it be so held now. 2.1 The learned AO has erred in stating that amended Explanation to 80IB

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

disallowing claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(9) 11,7187,247/- without taking proper cognizance of the order of the Gujarat High Court and not following the same on the ground that Department has filed appeal to the Supreme Court is submitted it be so held now. 2.1 The learned AO has erred in stating that amended Explanation to 80IB

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

disallowed. 10.2.3.2 Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the assesses was asked during assessment proceedings various queries relating to its claim u/s 801B/IC of the 1. T. Act, 1961. 10.3.0 The assessee was asked to justify the following during the course of assessment proceedings: i. Justification of claim u/s. 80IB/IC ii. Details of products manufactured u/s. 80IB/1C

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

section 80AC was not intentional or willful. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance made u/s 801B

SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,WARD-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

section 80AC was not intentional or willful. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance made u/s 801B

M/S. VAIBHAV CONSTRUCTION,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed the claim of the assessee in the order framed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Act vide dated 27-12-2010. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT (A) who has allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the issue for the area of plot of land has been considered

M/S. VAIBHAV CONSTRUCTION,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed the claim of the assessee in the order framed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Act vide dated 27-12-2010. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT (A) who has allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the issue for the area of plot of land has been considered

P.CHHOTALAL MANUFACTURERS & EXPORTE,R,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

section 801B. But the explanation offered was rejected, there would arisen no 4 . A.Y. 2008-09 presumption of concealment of the particulars of income that was added or disallowed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. NARAYAN REALTY LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

801B(10) of the Act, relating to the approval of the said project had not been complied with by the assessee in as much as it had not taken the approval from Local Authorities for the development and construction of the said project. Hence, the assessee could not be regarded as the builder and developer within the meaning