SHRI MUKESH HARJIBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Mukesh Harjibhai Patel Acit, Cir.5(3) 9, Malhar Bungalows Vs Ahmedabad. Shilaj Nandoli Road Kalol, Gandhinagar. Pan : Abvp P9561 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 8.6.2018 In Cit(A)-5/Acit Cir.5(3)/10028/2017-18 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short).

u/s. 271(l)(c) of Income Tax Act. So the addition of 10,88,357/- is made arbitratory and without any base. There is no concealment of income by the assessee and thus penalty on the amount of Rs. 10,88,357/-requires to be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual

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

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

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

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

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

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

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

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c ) of the IT. Act. (5) The learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting ground relating to charging interest u/s.234B and 234C of the IT. Act.” 3. The brief fact of the case is that assessee has filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 69,51,17,191/- on 20th Sep, 2012. Subsequently

THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.OP. BANK LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c ) of the IT. Act. (5) The learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting ground relating to charging interest u/s.234B and 234C of the IT. Act.” 3. The brief fact of the case is that assessee has filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 69,51,17,191/- on 20th Sep, 2012. Subsequently

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and CO of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smtmadhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Ahd/2015 & Cross Appeal No.49/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10) Dcit, Schutz Dishman Biotech बनाम/ Circle – 4(1)(1), Ltd., Vs. Ahmedabad. Bhadraraj Chambers, Nr. Swastik Cross Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccs 0988 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)/Cross Objector अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.R. Shri T.P. Hemani , A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

191/- which was treated as inflated purchases made by the assessee. Thus, the AO made the addition of Rs.2,40,33,059/- to the total income of the assessee for undisclosed investment and inflated purchases. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to Ld.CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO. Being aggrieved by the order

ASHISH MANOJ BHATIA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2015-16 Ashish Manoj Bhatia Dcit, Cir.4(2) 10, Kameshwardev Society Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Kishan Bungalows Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ahspb 1199 E

section 10(38) of the Act, being held as bogus and addition made of the entire sale consideration received accordingly to the income of assessee treating entire transaction only as accommodation entry. The relevant facts and finding of the ld.CIT(A) in this regard at para 4 of his order is as under: “4. DECISION: I have gone through

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) in respect of alleged price difference Rs.1,25,288/- on purchase from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (SPIL) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred m upholding the invoking of the provisions of S.80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) and thereby upholding the disallowance

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

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section