THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

housing loan available to the assessee but the same was not utilized for the purpose of the investment in the property. In this connection we note that the AO has made charts for different assessment years in which the assessee has sold different lands. These charts are available on pages 51 and 52 of the assessment order. The allegation that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS, BARODA

Properties, I hold that Pratham Meadows consisting of 55 residential units is a separate project developed by another assessee and further hold that the Appellant firm is entitled to deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of the 103 residential units in 'Pratham Vista' project which fulfils the criteria prescribed as to the size of the plot, the built

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Properties, I hold that Pratham Meadows consisting of 55 residential units is a separate project developed by another assessee and further hold that the Appellant firm is entitled to deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of the 103 residential units in 'Pratham Vista' project which fulfils the criteria prescribed as to the size of the plot, the built

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Property Representation: Except for the rights expressly under the terms of the Agreement this Agreement does not transfer any intellectual property rights, specifically with respect to the Products from SPGI to SPIL. SPGI represents and warrants that, to the best of the knowledge and belief of SPI , SPIL’s fulfillment of the terms of this agreement to the' manufacturing

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Property Representation: Except for the rights expressly under the terms of the Agreement this Agreement does not transfer any intellectual property rights, specifically with respect to the Products from SPGI to SPIL. SPGI represents and warrants that, to the best of the knowledge and belief of SPI , SPIL’s fulfillment of the terms of this agreement to the' manufacturing

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Property Representation: Except for the rights expressly under the terms of the Agreement this Agreement does not transfer any intellectual property rights, specifically with respect to the Products from SPGI to SPIL. SPGI represents and warrants that, to the best of the knowledge and belief of SPI , SPIL’s fulfillment of the terms of this agreement to the' manufacturing

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Property Representation: Except for the rights expressly under the terms of the Agreement this Agreement does not transfer any intellectual property rights, specifically with respect to the Products from SPGI to SPIL. SPGI represents and warrants that, to the best of the knowledge and belief of SPI , SPIL’s fulfillment of the terms of this agreement to the' manufacturing

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

House of Lords's pronouncement in Craven , the view taken by the Madras High Court appears to be correct and we are inclined to agree with it.” 11.3 Further, we also note that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Banyan And Berry Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (222 ITR 831) held that tax planning within

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

House of Lords's pronouncement in Craven , the view taken by the Madras High Court appears to be correct and we are inclined to agree with it.” 11.3 Further, we also note that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Banyan And Berry Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (222 ITR 831) held that tax planning within

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERZ& CHEMICALS. LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3476/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3357/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2006-07)

house generation electricity for captive consumption. It is because GEB (MGVCL) rate charging from customer includes the following tariff: (1) Power purchase cost from electricity generation units such GSECL,NTPC etc. (2) Transmission Charges paid to GETCO as well transmission cost to Power Grid Corporation of India for distribution network. (3) Transmission and distribution loss on an average

GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3476/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3357/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2006-07)

house generation electricity for captive consumption. It is because GEB (MGVCL) rate charging from customer includes the following tariff: (1) Power purchase cost from electricity generation units such GSECL,NTPC etc. (2) Transmission Charges paid to GETCO as well transmission cost to Power Grid Corporation of India for distribution network. (3) Transmission and distribution loss on an average

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

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

House, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. PAN: AACCS6163P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri SN Soparka, Sr.Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue Represented: Dr.Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 25-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER T.R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These cross appeals are filed by the Assessee

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

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

House, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. PAN: AACCS6163P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri SN Soparka, Sr.Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue Represented: Dr.Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 25-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER T.R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These cross appeals are filed by the Assessee