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(9

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

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

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 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 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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. MRS. CRYOGAS EQUIPOMNET PVT. LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 801B of the Act. The Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) therefore directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain the exact quantum of deduction after making proper verification to grant the relief. 5. The Tribunal also took the same view and held that the conversion of corrugated sheets into boxes would amount to 'manufacture' having noted the nature of activity

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

disallowed suo- motu in the revised return / -.statement of income in view of Explanation 4 to S. 40(b) and accordingly the profits of the business were increased to that extent. However, the AO, relying on past assessments in the case of SPI, disallowed the same. In view of the fact that the appellant has already added back this amount

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

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

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

801B of the Act in respect of Plant and Machinery used for R&D purpose. c) Regarding the allegation of the Ld. AO that more than 60% of the machinery has been transferred from Plant & Machinery to I.T.A No. 1628/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 9 Rotofilt Engineers Ltd. vs. ACIT Research and Development, yet there was no significant change

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)

801B of Rs. 9,22,058/-. 5. The assessee contention is as follows: 1. That the AO has initiated the penalty u/s. 271(l)[c) of the act without specifying as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income. It is submitted that the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act without

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

9. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IB/80IC of the act of Rs. 81,98,57,681/-. The assessee claimed these deductions in respect of undertakings located in backward area for deduction u/s. 80IB (Goa Unit) and for deduction u/s. 80IC (Paontashahib, Himachal Pradesh). On query, assessee explained that certificate

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) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that the appellant is not the developer on the ground that the plans have been approved in the name of owners of the land. 5. The Learned

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) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that the appellant is not the developer on the ground that the plans have been approved in the name of owners of the land. 5. The Learned

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

801B(10) of the Act including the size of the plot were duly fulfilled and complied with. It may also be pointed out the Revenue has neither filed any miscellaneous application nor approached the Hon. High Court against the order passed by the Hon. ITAT and therefore the same stands final and conclusive. 6. In pursuance of the matter being

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

801B(10) of the Act including the size of the plot were duly fulfilled and complied with. It may also be pointed out the Revenue has neither filed any miscellaneous application nor approached the Hon. High Court against the order passed by the Hon. ITAT and therefore the same stands final and conclusive. 6. In pursuance of the matter being