LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

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 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. 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 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

SMT. MINAL NAYAN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR, CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

property", otter than the new asset. 4.2 If the above view is taken, it is evident that you have purchased the entire super structure of E Block consisting of 03 independent, units, and not a residential house and hence as per the applicability clause of section 54F of the Act, you are-not eligible for the claim of deduction

M/S. GARRISON POLYSACKS P.LTD.,,BARODA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BARODA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

section 40A(7) only the payment by way of contribution towards an "approved gratuity fund" are allowable as deduction. Accordingly, the action of the AO is justified as gratuity fund of the appellant is not approved during the relevant year. Therefore, the second ground is dismissed for the relevant assessment years.” 7. During the course of appellate proceedings before

AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

House Ltd reported in 194 taxman 324. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as hereunder: While exercising power under section 263, the Commissioner has to be satisfied that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and there are materials available on record which require the Commissioner to satisfy him in a, prima facie, manner that

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House of Vasibhai Vasrambhai Desai, at village Khadeda, Rabari Vas, Dist. Patan. Sanjeet Motors 6, Saarthi Bungalows Finance P.Ltd. Prernatirth Derasar Road Satellite, Ahmedabad. 17/B/1, Devendra Society Naranpura Ahmedabad. B/6, Pallavi Apartment Opp: Municipal Market C.G.Road Ahmedabad. 3. In order to give logical end to the search, the ld.AO had issued notice under section 153A, 153C

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House of Vasibhai Vasrambhai Desai, at village Khadeda, Rabari Vas, Dist. Patan. Sanjeet Motors 6, Saarthi Bungalows Finance P.Ltd. Prernatirth Derasar Road Satellite, Ahmedabad. 17/B/1, Devendra Society Naranpura Ahmedabad. B/6, Pallavi Apartment Opp: Municipal Market C.G.Road Ahmedabad. 3. In order to give logical end to the search, the ld.AO had issued notice under section 153A, 153C