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

RAMANLAL JIVRAJBHAI PATEL,THANE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel The Ito B-2003, Shreeji Heights Vs Ward-1 (Palm Beach Road, Navi Mumbai – Himatnagar Thane, Nerul Node –Iii So) Sector 46A, Plot No.1, 1A, 1B, 1C Thane 400 706 Maharashtra Pan: Abcpp 1551 G .. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Patel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20/02/2024 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ao’] Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Facts Of The Case: Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

disallowance should not be of Rs. 2,70,507/-. 9. As per clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 80C

BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act with reference to net interest expenses of the assessee. The assessee partially succeeds on this ground of appeal.” We have also carefully considered the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Banaskantha Dist. Co-op Milk Producers’ Union Ltd. which was followed the decision passed by the Hon’ble Delhi

BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act with reference to net interest expenses of the assessee. The assessee partially succeeds on this ground of appeal.” We have also carefully considered the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Banaskantha Dist. Co-op Milk Producers’ Union Ltd. which was followed the decision passed by the Hon’ble Delhi

SHRI MAHESHBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL,UNJHA vs. ITO, PATAN, WARD-4,, UNJHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80C amounting to Rs.53,138/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee

RUPINDER SINGH DUGGAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance of deduction under section 80C of the Act amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, though such issue was not the subject

MITULKUMAR AJITKUMAR DESAI,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 80C & 80D was also disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 16.12.2019, at a total

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

80C 30,000/- Total Income Assessed 78,75,310/- 2.8 Penalty proceedings under sections 271F and 271(1)(c) were separately initiated, and interest under sections 234A and 234B was charged. 2.9 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that while he accepted the working of capital

M S HOSTEL,NEW SAMA SAVLI ROAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), VADODARA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of expenses under Section 40 of the Act since both the Section 37 & 40A of the Act are attracted if the expenditure is not found to have been incurred exclusively for the business purpose and is excess as compare to the fair market value is found to be acceptable. Moreso, the appellant firm also deducted tax on the said

MAHESHKUMAR RAJKARANBHAI SHAH,DEESA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PALANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A i.e. Section 80C of Rs.1,00,000/- and Section 80D of Rs.5

ADANI ELECTRICITY MUMBAI LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE AO, CPC, BANGLORE (JURISDICTIONAL AO : THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowances for late payments of employee contributions, a matter that has created considerable debate. Significantly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that amendments introduced in the Finance Bill of 2021 provided clarity on this issue through the insertion of Explanations to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Act. Explanation 5 to Section 43B clarifies that its provisions do not apply

SHRI ASHISH HARIBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

sections 80C. 80D and 80G of the Act which is also reflected at page-6. of the assessment order. As per the appellant he informed the A.O. that the house hold expenses are at Rs.15.000/-per month while the A.O.. has estimated it at Rs.20.000/-. according to which it comes to Rs.2.40,000/-. Considering this, the A.O. added with

ADANI HAZIRA PORT PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ADANI HAZIRA PORT PRIVATE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE AO, CPC, BANGLORE PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

80C and Section 80CCD. There is a deduction of up to Rs. 1.5 lakhs to be claimed for NPS for your contribution as well as for the contribution of the employer.” 3.1. The assessee further pleaded similar disallowance

ADANI POWER LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC BANGALORE PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

80C and 80CCD of the Income Tax Act. The Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that contributions to the NPS can occur in two ways: individuals may contribute directly, availing deductions under sections 80CCD(1) and 80CCD(1B), or through their employer, which allows for deductions under section 80CCD(2). In the assessee's scenario, employees contribute through

ELITECORE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT.-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowing the set-off of the business loss of A.Y 2001-02 and added it back to the total income of the assessee-company. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of assessment dated 24th December 2009, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and by order dated 19th November 2010, the CIT(A) had dismissed

PRAGNESH AMRUTLAL GAJJAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

80C 1,50,000 of the Act (iii) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 19,343 80D of the Act I.T.A No. 2207/Ahd/2025 Pragnesh Amrutlal Gajjar, A.Y. 2019-20 (iv) Disallowance of Loss from house property 66,264 TOTAL 4,85,607 Accordingly, the total income of appellant was assessed at Rs. 9,61,427/- as against the returned income

THE ITO, WARD-11(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SHAMSHENDER LOHIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

80C of the Act and deduction of Rs.10,219/- under section 80D of the Act, the net income worked out to Rs.7,31,198/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished confirmation from the following depositors:- S. Name of the Opening Addition Addl. Payment Closing N. Party Balance (Rs.) Interest (Rs.) Balance (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. Amresh

VINAYNA VELJEE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

disallowance of Rs, 7,35,785/- as receipts of Rs. 7,95,000/- of 1st instalment of insurance policy. In original return of income, entire income was offered to tax. After revision of return of income, deduction of Rs. 7,95,000/- was claimed on account of proportionate cost of one time premium paid. 2.3.1 Assessee claimed that CBDT Circular