ASHWIN BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE J.C.I.T., RANGE-12,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1226/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11)

disallowance under Section 80IB(10) for Rs. 44,76,208 is confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, the assessee in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR for the assessee filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 153 and submitted that the assessee has been allowed

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

KOSHAMBH CHARITABLE TRUST,VADODARA vs. CPC, BANGALORE PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, VADODARA

In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance was made without issuing any notice to the assessee / appellant. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer, CPC based this adjustment on the proviso to Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, which mandates

VOLARK LEASING IFSC PVT. LTD,GUJARAT vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement

BENNET PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it was held that the assessee can be permitted to produce such a report at later stage when question of disallowance

BENNET PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it was held that the assessee can be permitted to produce such a report at later stage when question of disallowance

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)

section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, assessee can be permitted to produce such report at later stage when question of disallowance

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)

section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, assessee can be permitted to produce such report at later stage when question of disallowance

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-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)

section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, assessee can be permitted to produce such report at later stage when question of disallowance

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)

section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, assessee can be permitted to produce such report at later stage when question of disallowance

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)

section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, assessee can be permitted to produce such report at later stage when question of disallowance

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)

section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, assessee can be permitted to produce such report at later stage when question of disallowance

RAJGOR AGRO LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Addl./Joint Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance On The Ground That The Assessee Opted For New Tax Regime Under Section 115Baa Of The Act & Filed Form No. 10-Ic On 28.12.2024. Since Both The Return Of Income & Form No. 10-Ic Have Been Filed Belatedly, The Addl./Joint Cit(A) Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

section 80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing of auditor`s report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it was held that the assessee can be permitted to produce such a report at later stage when question of disallowance

THE ACIT, CIRCLE -1,, SURAT vs. M/S. KIRAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2343/Ahd/2013 With Co No.52/Ahd/2014 /Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Acit, Cir.1 Vs. M/S.Kiran Industries P.Ltd. Surat. Kiran Compound, Mugat Dyeing Lane Udhana, Surat. Pan : Aabck 0359 C. / (Appellant) / (Respondent)

80J(6A) and held that submission of audit report in support of claim admissible under section 80IB is a directory condition and if it is complied with even during the course of assessment proceedings, then deduction could not be disallowed

TRUE SPARROW SYSYTEM PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-2, VADODARA

In the result, we hold that the Ld

section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, assessee can be permitted to produce such report at later stage when question of disallowance

SHIKSHA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

disallowance was made/the application of income was denied to the assessee trust only for the reason that audit report was not filed by the assessee along with return of income. However, the said audit report was filed before the intimation under section 143 (1) of the Act was passed by the Department. The counsel for the assessee submitted that

APRAMEYA ENGINEERING LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 1(1)(1), INCOME TAX OFFICER , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2022-23 Aprameya Engineering Limited The Income Tax Officer 908, 9Th Floor, Vs Ward-1(1)(1) Venus Atlantis Ahmedabad Corporate Park Anandnagar, Prahlad Nagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) Pan: Aawca 3138 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 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 Of The Add/Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5 Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred As “The Cit(A)”), Dated 23-02-2024, Which Dismissed The Assessee'S Appeal Against The Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”), Passed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. The Primary Issue Is The Rejection Of The Assessee'S Claim For Taxation At A Lower Rate Under Section Aprameya Engineering Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2022-23

section 80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing of auditor`s report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it was held that the assessee can be permitted to produce such a report at later stage when question of disallowance

M/S. SHARDABEN EDUCATION TRUST,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2312/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 M/S. Shardaben Education Trust, Income Tax Officer, Set, Opp. Kailash Dham, Vs. (Exemption) Pethapur, Ward-1, Gandhinagar-382610. Ahmedabad.

80J(6A) of the Act. A.Y. 2014-15 7 12.2 In view of the above we hold that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption for which it is entitled merely on the lapse of procedural requirement i.e. delay in filing the audit report in the prescribed form. In the judgment cited above, it was provided that