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

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. WEST WING INFRA PROJECTS., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Cir.5(2) M/S.West Wing Infra Projects Ahmedabad. Vs 1, Dhaval Society, Part-I Opp: St. Zaviers School Navrangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaafw 7956 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rupesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 16.07.2018 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-5/Ito, Wd.5(2)(4)/135/2015-16 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Sole Issue Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Restricting Addition At Rs.1,81,06,445/- Made U/S.80Ib(10) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To The Act] To Rs.11,83,663/-. 2

Section 801B(10) of the Act. The A.O. therefore approached to the Departmental Valuation Officer during course of assessment proceeding directing him to ascertain verify and report the area of each unit sold by the assessee on which 801B(10) is claimed. However as the matter was getting time barred and no report from DVO was received till 31st March

VRAJ CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,GNR RANGE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

section 80IB(10) of the act at page 2 & 3 of the assessment order. I.T.A No. 2208 & 2496/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 3 Vraj Coporation vs. Addl. CIT Thereafter, the assessing officer observed that following issues have important effect on allowably of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the act. 4. The ownership of land rest with three individuals unrelated

THE ITO, WARD-4,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. VRAJ CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

section 80IB(10) of the act at page 2 & 3 of the assessment order. I.T.A No. 2208 & 2496/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 3 Vraj Coporation vs. Addl. CIT Thereafter, the assessing officer observed that following issues have important effect on allowably of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the act. 4. The ownership of land rest with three individuals unrelated

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(10

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(10

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

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

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

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 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

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

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)

section 801A(8) and 801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 The learned AO, without requiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in observing that apportionment of expenses has been done on mechanical basis & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that

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)

section 801A(8) and 801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 The learned AO, without requiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in observing that apportionment of expenses has been done on mechanical basis & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that

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)

section 801A(8) and 801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 The learned AO, without requiring appellant to furnish any details in assessment proceedings, erred in observing that apportionment of expenses has been done on mechanical basis & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that

M/S. SHREE NARAYAN ENTERPRISE,BARODA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), BARODA

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-16 Shree Narayan Enterprise I.T.O, 4 Amarkunj, Vs. Ward-1(2)(1), Urmi Vaccine Road, Vadodara. Behind Spandan Apartment, Vadodara-390002. Pan: Aapfs6878K

801B(10), which was allowed from time to time by the Ld. Appellate Authorities for the other assessment years, is bad in law and is prayed to be cancelled / quashed. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 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