SHRI DASHRATH AMBALAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 296/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Dashrath Ambalal Patel, Ito, बनाम/ 9, Jashwant Society, Ward – 7(2), Vs. Jodhpur Char Rasta, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad – 380 015. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akypp 5852 G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Mehul Talera, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R.

house property but only on the fact that for the same property the registration deed was made on 10.10.11, the time limit as stipulated under section 54F of the Act was not adhered hence the deduction was rejected. The appellant emphatically contended that it made investment of Rs.11,11,000/- till 15/12/2006 which was not disputed by A.O. also

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

163 where in the following question was raised and adjudicated: “(2) When the assessee invests the entire sale consideration construction of a residential house within three years from the date of transfer can be denied exemption under Section 54F on the ground that he did not deposit the said amount in capital gains account scheme before the due date prescribed

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

163 where in the following question was raised and adjudicated: “(2) When the assessee invests the entire sale consideration construction of a residential house within three years from the date of transfer can be denied exemption under Section 54F on the ground that he did not deposit the said amount in capital gains account scheme before the due date prescribed

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAKESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH , AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House (admitted by the assessee), Rs. 50,00,000/- from Rancharda Land, and Rs.1,81,75,387/- from Mulsana Land. The balance Rs. 12,22,36,163/- was held to be unexplained money or investment. The total assessed income was assessed at Rs.14,73,11,550/-, and penalty proceedings under sections 271AAB and 270A were initiated. 5. In appeal before

RAKESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House (admitted by the assessee), Rs. 50,00,000/- from Rancharda Land, and Rs.1,81,75,387/- from Mulsana Land. The balance Rs. 12,22,36,163/- was held to be unexplained money or investment. The total assessed income was assessed at Rs.14,73,11,550/-, and penalty proceedings under sections 271AAB and 270A were initiated. 5. In appeal before

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

Properties, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed. 8. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Properties, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed. 8. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

property used for residence up to 30-3-1998, inasmuch as the return of income-tax for the assessment year 1997-98 could be furnished before the expiry of one year from the end; of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of %e assessment whichever is earlier under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Income

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

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax

163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The cross-objection filed by the assessee is not pressed and accordingly dismissed summarily. 3. So far as the appeal filed by the Revenue is concerned, the grievances of the Assessing Officer are as follows:- “1 On the facts and circumstances of the of the case

M/S. HAATHEE VENTURES,,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, ground number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

house to assessee, assessee applied to transfer its shares and outstanding loan in favour of purchaser. The Society, however, declined to approve proposed transfer. However, this approval was subsequently given on 11-10-1986, the ITAT Ahmedabad held that since conveyance deed was not executed and registered during year in question, i.e., assessment year 1982-83, no capital gain

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A Nos. 60 & 61/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 2 Patel Kenwood

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A Nos. 60 & 61/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 2 Patel Kenwood

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

properties of the company including manufacturing facilities, research facilities and office premises. v. A minimum fixed asset cover of 1.1 times over these assets. vi. Net debt / EBIDTA to be not more than 4.5 times vii. Debt gearing not to exceed 1.65 times during the currency of facility. viii. Debt service cover ratio shall not be less than 1.33 times

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

House Income Tax (Exemptions), 78, Race Course, Circle-2, Ahmedabad Vadodara, 390007 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAAAB1410E Appellant by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT/ D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 13-06-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10-07-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order