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

JMC-MSKE(JV),,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Us & That These Four

155 DTR 109 (J&K). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the order of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. N.C.C. – M.S.K.E.L.(JV) v. ITO in ITA No. 2476/Ahd/2010 & ITA No. 231/Ahd/2012 (in which one of us- Hon’ble Judicial Member- was part of the Division Bench who pronounced the order). The ld. Counsel

BGSCTPL- MSKEL (JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Us & That These Four

155 DTR 109 (J&K). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the order of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. N.C.C. – M.S.K.E.L.(JV) v. ITO in ITA No. 2476/Ahd/2010 & ITA No. 231/Ahd/2012 (in which one of us- Hon’ble Judicial Member- was part of the Division Bench who pronounced the order). The ld. Counsel

BGSCTPL- MSKEL CONSORTIUM,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Us & That These Four

155 DTR 109 (J&K). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the order of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. N.C.C. – M.S.K.E.L.(JV) v. ITO in ITA No. 2476/Ahd/2010 & ITA No. 231/Ahd/2012 (in which one of us- Hon’ble Judicial Member- was part of the Division Bench who pronounced the order). The ld. Counsel

JMC-MSKE(JV),,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Us & That These Four

155 DTR 109 (J&K). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the order of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. N.C.C. – M.S.K.E.L.(JV) v. ITO in ITA No. 2476/Ahd/2010 & ITA No. 231/Ahd/2012 (in which one of us- Hon’ble Judicial Member- was part of the Division Bench who pronounced the order). The ld. Counsel

THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RADHE KRISHNA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

15,090/-. There was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on04.03.2010 and found to have seized few loose papers, documents and books of accounts were impounded. 3.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made the following additions: (a) understatement of value of investment

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

155 to 166 of the Paper Book, Stock statement as on 31-03-2017 and relevant bank statements evidencing payment made to M/s. Laxmi Enterprise. Screenshot of Gujarat State VAT Department in the case of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises. 6.1. Further Ld. Counsel drawn our attention to the copy of bills at Page Nos. 160 onwards of the Paper Book wherein

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

155 to 166 of the Paper Book, Stock statement as on 31-03-2017 and relevant bank statements evidencing payment made to M/s. Laxmi Enterprise. Screenshot of Gujarat State VAT Department in the case of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises. 6.1. Further Ld. Counsel drawn our attention to the copy of bills at Page Nos. 160 onwards of the Paper Book wherein

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED , SINDHU BHAWAN ROAD, BODAKDEV

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

property of the public. The assessee was to maintain at its own cost sufficient experienced supervisory staff required for the work and arrangement of their housing. The assessee was to have the field laboratory for the purpose of testing materials. The assessee has to arrange electric power and water supply. The assessee was also under the obligation to provide traffic

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED, MONTECARLO HOUSE, SINDHU BHAWA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

property of the public. The assessee was to maintain at its own cost sufficient experienced supervisory staff required for the work and arrangement of their housing. The assessee was to have the field laboratory for the purpose of testing materials. The assessee has to arrange electric power and water supply. The assessee was also under the obligation to provide traffic

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded