DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHATHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

b) of the Act on the amount of excess DDT refunded from 01.10.2010 to the date the refund was granted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order u/s.154 of the act passed on 15.03.2021. I.T.A No. 530/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 3. In the order

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Court erred in holding that ‘dairying’ is not industry or agricultural development or development of industrial facility for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Court erred in holding that ‘dairying’ is not industry or agricultural development or development of industrial facility for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Court erred in holding that ‘dairying’ is not industry or agricultural development or development of industrial facility for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Court erred in holding that ‘dairying’ is not industry or agricultural development or development of industrial facility for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

244A of the Act amounting to Rs.19,32,350/-. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.64,67,783/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.38,840/ in respect of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act relating to the late payment of PF/ESIC payment. The Assessing Officer assessed

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

244A of the Act amounting to Rs.19,32,350/-. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.64,67,783/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.38,840/ in respect of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act relating to the late payment of PF/ESIC payment. The Assessing Officer assessed

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

68,23,115 while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act, without appreciating that: (a) adjustment, if any, could have only been made out of expenditure actually debited to the audited accounts; (b) the method/ formula prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules was not relevant for computing book profit. 10. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred

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

68,23,115 while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act, without appreciating that: (a) adjustment, if any, could have only been made out of expenditure actually debited to the audited accounts; (b) the method/ formula prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules was not relevant for computing book profit. 10. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred

ROTOMAG MOTORS & CONTROLS (P) LTD.,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

Appeal is allowed

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD\nBEFORE S/SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nMAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No.796/Ahd/2025\nAsstt.Year : 2014-2015\nM/s.Roomag Motors &\nControls P.Ltd.[Rotomag\nEnertec Ltd.)\n2102/3&4, GIDC Estate\nVithal Udyognagar\nAnand 388 121.\nPAN: AAACR 9061 K\nDy.CIT, Anand Circle\nVs.\nAnand.\n(Applicant)\n(Responent)\nAssessee by\n:\nShri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate, &\nShri Kushal Fofaria

MINOR HARESH KARSANBHAI PATEL ORAL SPECIFIC DEFERRED FAMILY TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2) NOW WARD- 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 863/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 1982-1983 Minor Haresh Karsanbhai Patel Oral Income Tax Officer, Specific Deferred Family Trust, Vs. Ward-5(2)(2), Nirma House, Ahmedabad. Near Income Tax Circle, Now Ashram Road, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad-380009. Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad Pan: Aaath4880P

B respectively. 2. Ld. Assessing Officer granted interest u/s.244A of the I.T. Act of Rs. 1,16,985/- on Rs.68,328/- up to the date of order i.e. 20-06-2019. However, refund was issued on 15- 04-2020. It is to be noted that interest u/s. 244A of the I.T. Act is to be granted up to the date

TOSHIBA TECHNICAL SERVICES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. THE ADIT.,(INTL.TAXN.)-2, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2015-16 Toshiba Technical Services Vs. Acit, International International Corporation Taxation-2 (India Project Office) Ahmedabad. B-/12 Vijay Wadi Niwas Chs Ltd. Lokmanya Tilak Road Mulund East, Mumbai Pan : Aabct 9577 D

B-/12 Vijay Wadi Niwas CHS Ltd. Lokmanya Tilak Road Mulund East, Mumbai PAN : AABCT 9577 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Atul Pandey, SR-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 19/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

68,127/- in the tax computation even though duly granted under an intimation processed u/s 143(1) by the CPC. 12. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in not allowing credit for relief claimed u/s 90 of Rs. 37,46,819/-. 13. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in inadvertently

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

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 by the Hon’ble ITAT vide

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

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 by the Hon’ble ITAT vide