NARANBHAI SAMATBHAI BHARWAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIR DEVRAJBHAI NARANBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

119 13,00,000 3,14,000 7,75,247 2,50,000 2,15,37,539 2014-15 2,

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

AANYA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

section 68 of the Act. He further observed that the assessee has alleged payment of interest on these loans which were termed as bogus, therefore, the expenses claimed in the shape of interest deserves to be disallowed. He disallowed such interest expenditure and made addition of Rs.3,01,277/-. 5. Dissatisfied with the additions, the assessee carried the matter

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

68,1747-). The promotional material is not exclusive to the Doctors and is distributed among all stakeholders including the dealers , pharmacists etc. The Medical Council of India (MCI) issued amended regulations which are called as Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 on 10.12.2009 prohibiting the doctors to accept the freebies from pharma companies and termed such

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

68,1747-). The promotional material is not exclusive to the Doctors and is distributed among all stakeholders including the dealers , pharmacists etc. The Medical Council of India (MCI) issued amended regulations which are called as Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 on 10.12.2009 prohibiting the doctors to accept the freebies from pharma companies and termed such

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

119 thereof. " 2.9 It is respectfully submitted that the constitutional validity of the retrospective amendment to section 92B has not been challenged before any of the competent court and considering the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Vodafone referred above, the effect of retrospective amendment cannot be ignored. 2.10 The coordinate bench

THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

119 thereof. " 2.9 It is respectfully submitted that the constitutional validity of the retrospective amendment to section 92B has not been challenged before any of the competent court and considering the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Vodafone referred above, the effect of retrospective amendment cannot be ignored. 2.10 The coordinate bench

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

119 thereof. " 2.9 It is respectfully submitted that the constitutional validity of the retrospective amendment to section 92B has not been challenged before any of the competent court and considering the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Vodafone referred above, the effect of retrospective amendment cannot be ignored. 2.10 The coordinate bench

THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

119 thereof. " 2.9 It is respectfully submitted that the constitutional validity of the retrospective amendment to section 92B has not been challenged before any of the competent court and considering the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Vodafone referred above, the effect of retrospective amendment cannot be ignored. 2.10 The coordinate bench

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section or the other. Surely, the legislature cannot run amok in the blind belief that Art. 31A is omnipotent. We will examine the alleged infirmities in due course. It is significant that even apart from the many decisions upholding Art. 31A, Golak Nath's case decided by a Bench of 11 Judges, while holding that the Constitution (First Amendment

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section or the other. Surely, the legislature cannot run amok in the blind belief that Art. 31A is omnipotent. We will examine the alleged infirmities in due course. It is significant that even apart from the many decisions upholding Art. 31A, Golak Nath's case decided by a Bench of 11 Judges, while holding that the Constitution (First Amendment

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section or the other. Surely, the legislature cannot run amok in the blind belief that Art. 31A is omnipotent. We will examine the alleged infirmities in due course. It is significant that even apart from the many decisions upholding Art. 31A, Golak Nath's case decided by a Bench of 11 Judges, while holding that the Constitution (First Amendment

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section or the other. Surely, the legislature cannot run amok in the blind belief that Art. 31A is omnipotent. We will examine the alleged infirmities in due course. It is significant that even apart from the many decisions upholding Art. 31A, Golak Nath's case decided by a Bench of 11 Judges, while holding that the Constitution (First Amendment