THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

147 of the Act. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O in issuing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and reassessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. M7 of the Act. 2.. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to properly

GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4, NOW, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

147 of the Act. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O in issuing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and reassessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. M7 of the Act. 2.. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to properly

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1115/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Ward-1(2)(3), Shaikh, Prop. of M/s. I.K. Ahmedabad International, House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Kagdiwad, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No. AHEPS2816H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O. No. 10/Ahd/2022

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1115/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Ward-1(2)(3), Shaikh, Prop. of M/s. I.K. Ahmedabad International, House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Kagdiwad, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No. AHEPS2816H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O. No. 10/Ahd/2022

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

40A(2)(b) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in quashing the assessment order holding that reassessment notice relating to alleged escapement of income relating to disallowance u/s.14A is mere change of opinion on part of the subsequent Assessing Officer, without considering

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

40A(2)(b) by their independent effort and also on the basis of facilities obtained on hire from SPIL; .2 SPG had acquired these technologies from UTL and MJPL and hence the question of SPG not having R&D facilities and/or fixed assets was not relevant to the issue beforehand; .3 the income statements of SPG were examined in detail

SHRI BIPINKUMAR HIRALAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of the assessee challenging the re-assessment proceedings is allowed

2 Bipinkumar Hiralal Shah vs. ITO “1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 15/5/2014 for A.Y.2007-08 by CIT(A)-XI, Abad, partly confirming the addition u/s 69C of Rs.3,45,678 is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully

SHRI KAMLESH JAYANTILAL JHAVERI,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Kamlesh Jayantilal Jhaveri, Income Tax Officer, B/201, Siddh Silla Apartment, Vs Ward 10(1), B/H. Ekta Tower, Barrage Road, Ahmedabad Vasna, Ahmedabad Pan : Aetpj 5973 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-5 [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 26.02.2015; And, The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) On Account Of Disallowance Of Assessee’S Claim For Loss Of Rs.12.64 Crores.

u/s. 40A(2)(b) and also the fact that there is no allegation of any collusion or arrangement with these party by which the profit has been manipulated. Merely, decline in GP by itself cannot be the reason for rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the income as was held in following judicial pronouncements.” 3. The Assessing Officer

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 12. A perusal of this section would indicate that sub-section-1 contemplates that deduction of expenditure incurred

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 12. A perusal of this section would indicate that sub-section-1 contemplates that deduction of expenditure incurred

AFFAQUE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act thereby assessing the total income of Rs.1,67,43,373/-. 2.1. On perusal of the above reassessment records by Ld. PCIT, the assessee company has made total cash deposits of Rs.2,09,79,700/-, however in the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer has made an addition only to the extent of Rs.1 crore. Thus

SHRI KAMLESH J. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 10(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1254/Ahd/2016 नि◌धा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Kamlesh J. Jhaveri, Income Tax Officer, B/201, Siddh Silla Apartment, Vs. Ward-10(1), B/H. Ekta Tower, Ahmedabad. Barage Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Aetpj5973L

40A(2)(b) of the Act. But ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of losses of Rs.77,95,670/- on the basis of his observation which erupted out of the additional plea taken by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings and before the first appellate authority assessee had submitted that primarily all the impugned 15 transactions have been

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee is in the nature of income as assessee could not demonstrate whether

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee is in the nature of income as assessee could not demonstrate whether

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 246/Ahd/2020 & CO No. 74/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Applitech Solution Limited, Circle 1(1)(1), Vs 503, Paritosh, Nr. Darpan Ahmedabad Academy, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380013 PAN: AABCA 8332 P ITA No. 247/Ahd/2020 & CO No. 75/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

40a(ia) also cannot be made. In the result ground no.9 of the appeal is allowed.” 30. In view of the identical issue raised before us in the ground of appeal no. 7 which has already been considered by the ITAT Delhi as discussed above, we are taking the same view. Accordingly, we allow the ground of appeal

SHRI MUKESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeals are dismissed

147/- and Rs.1,15,370/-; respectively, in proceedings u/s. 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. ITA Nos. 447 & 448/Ahd/15 [Mukeshbhai V. Patel vs. ITO] A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08 - 2 - 2. Learned counsel representing assessee first of all submits that he does not wish to press