DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed to be a part of the business income. Thus, will be treated as profit derived from business of the undertaking. These cannot be excluded. Even otherwise, when we apply Sub-section (4) to Section 10B, the entire amount received by way of duty draw back would not become eligible for deduction/exemption. The amount quantified as per the formula would

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed to be a part of the business income. Thus, will be treated as profit derived from business of the undertaking. These cannot be excluded. Even otherwise, when we apply Sub-section (4) to Section 10B, the entire amount received by way of duty draw back would not become eligible for deduction/exemption. The amount quantified as per the formula would

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed to be a part of the business income. Thus, will be treated as profit derived from business of the undertaking. These cannot be excluded. Even otherwise, when we apply Sub-section (4) to Section 10B, the entire amount received by way of duty draw back would not become eligible for deduction/exemption. The amount quantified as per the formula would

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed to be a part of the business income. Thus, will be treated as profit derived from business of the undertaking. These cannot be excluded. Even otherwise, when we apply Sub-section (4) to Section 10B, the entire amount received by way of duty draw back would not become eligible for deduction/exemption. The amount quantified as per the formula would

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed to be a part of the business income. Thus, will be treated as profit derived from business of the undertaking. These cannot be excluded. Even otherwise, when we apply Sub-section (4) to Section 10B, the entire amount received by way of duty draw back would not become eligible for deduction/exemption. The amount quantified as per the formula would

ANMOL HIMANSHU PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HIMANSHU RAOJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4) NOW PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1479/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anmol Himanshu Patel The Ito बनाम/ (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Ward-1(1)(4) V/S. Raojibhai Patel) Now Present Jurisdiction Bs/B-7, Indraprasth Complex The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1)(1) Nr. Inox Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqpp 6460 P (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Anmol Himanshu Patel (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel) Vs. Dcit Asst.Year 2015-16. “1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Order Passed By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act was not covered in the limited scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee. The AO did not take permission from the competent authority to cover the said issue or to convert the limited scrutiny into full scrutiny assessment, Anmol Himanshu Patel (Legal Heir of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel) vs. DCIT Asst.Year

ALPA UDAYKUMAR SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

deemed to be not satisfactory, unless- (a) the person being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited: and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory. (emphasis added). Thus

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deemed income as per section 68 or 69A of the Act though your appellant has not maintained any books of accounts. Accordingly, confirmed additions of Rs. 4,99,483/- to the returned income as against additions of Rs. 61,02,094/-made by Id. AO. 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, on the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deemed income as per section 68 or 69A of the Act though your appellant has not maintained any books of accounts. Accordingly, confirmed additions of Rs. 4,99,483/- to the returned income as against additions of Rs. 61,02,094/-made by Id. AO. 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, on the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deemed income as per section 68 or 69A of the Act though your appellant has not maintained any books of accounts. Accordingly, confirmed additions of Rs. 4,99,483/- to the returned income as against additions of Rs. 61,02,094/-made by Id. AO. 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, on the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deemed income as per section 68 or 69A of the Act though your appellant has not maintained any books of accounts. Accordingly, confirmed additions of Rs. 4,99,483/- to the returned income as against additions of Rs. 61,02,094/-made by Id. AO. 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, on the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deemed income as per section 68 or 69A of the Act though your appellant has not maintained any books of accounts. Accordingly, confirmed additions of Rs. 4,99,483/- to the returned income as against additions of Rs. 61,02,094/-made by Id. AO. 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, on the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deemed income as per section 68 or 69A of the Act though your appellant has not maintained any books of accounts. Accordingly, confirmed additions of Rs. 4,99,483/- to the returned income as against additions of Rs. 61,02,094/-made by Id. AO. 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, on the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deemed income as per section 68 or 69A of the Act though your appellant has not maintained any books of accounts. Accordingly, confirmed additions of Rs. 4,99,483/- to the returned income as against additions of Rs. 61,02,094/-made by Id. AO. 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, on the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deemed income as per section 68 or 69A of the Act though your appellant has not maintained any books of accounts. Accordingly, confirmed additions of Rs. 4,99,483/- to the returned income as against additions of Rs. 61,02,094/-made by Id. AO. 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, on the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deemed income as per section 68 or 69A of the Act though your appellant has not maintained any books of accounts. Accordingly, confirmed additions of Rs. 4,99,483/- to the returned income as against additions of Rs. 61,02,094/-made by Id. AO. 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, on the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deemed income as per section 68 or 69A of the Act though your appellant has not maintained any books of accounts. Accordingly, confirmed additions of Rs. 4,99,483/- to the returned income as against additions of Rs. 61,02,094/-made by Id. AO. 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, on the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deemed income as per section 68 or 69A of the Act though your appellant has not maintained any books of accounts. Accordingly, confirmed additions of Rs. 4,99,483/- to the returned income as against additions of Rs. 61,02,094/-made by Id. AO. 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, on the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case