GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

269 (Delhi), wherein it is held that: “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Share capital

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

269 (Delhi), wherein it is held that: “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Share capital

M/S. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

68 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. As regards additional ground, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment has reviewed the original assessment order and, therefore, the review of the original assessment

MR. PRANJAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

sections etc. whether applicable or not merely on assumption or presumption without applying the mind. Your appellant therefore submits that the notice u/s. 263 dated 09-03-2017 and order passed u/s. 263 dated 28-03-2017 are bad in law and the same should be cancelled.” 3. In this case, return of income declaring income

ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHESH SIDHARTH AGARWAL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1004/Ahd/2018 (िनधार्रण वषर् / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Shri Ashesh Sidharth Agarwal Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. D-804, Awari Flats, B/H Karnavati Bunglow, S. G. Highway, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afwpa2415A (अपीलाथीर् /Appellant) (प्र"यथीर् / Respondent) .. अपीलाथीर् ओर से /Appellant By : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr.D.R. प्र"यथीर् की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of 07/09/2022 Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of 31/10/2022 Pronouncement

Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire dated 05.05.2014 was served upon the assessee. It appears that the AIR details consist of 107 entries for deposit of amount into the bank and entry for sale of immovable property whereupon assessee was directed to furnish the details, particularly, in regard to the long term capital gain earned on sale

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP VENTURE LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

269 I.T.(SS)A No. 47 to 52/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19 Page No 8 Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors. Note: The BU permission for the said project has been received on 29/06/2022. (refer page no. 5 to 8 of this submission). 7.13. As per the settled provisions of the law, the request

SANKALP ORGANISERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

269 I.T.(SS)A No. 47 to 52/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19 Page No 8 Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors. Note: The BU permission for the said project has been received on 29/06/2022. (refer page no. 5 to 8 of this submission). 7.13. As per the settled provisions of the law, the request

SANKALP VENTURE LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

269 I.T.(SS)A No. 47 to 52/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19 Page No 8 Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors. Note: The BU permission for the said project has been received on 29/06/2022. (refer page no. 5 to 8 of this submission). 7.13. As per the settled provisions of the law, the request

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP ORGANISERS PVT LTD , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

269 I.T.(SS)A No. 47 to 52/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19 Page No 8 Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors. Note: The BU permission for the said project has been received on 29/06/2022. (refer page no. 5 to 8 of this submission). 7.13. As per the settled provisions of the law, the request

PRAVINBHAI GIRDHARBHAI PATEL,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, PATAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3471/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Shri Pravinbhai Girdharbhai Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-3 79/248/253, Hanuman Vas Patan. Vilalge-Virta Dist. Mehsana 3894 001. Pan : Akmpp 1380 N

269/-. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by recording the following finding: “4.3 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment - order, submission made by the appellant and also the case laws relied upon by appellant. Appellant has not filed any source evidence at the time of assessment proceedings for the deposits made in his bank

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

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

269/- 2. Ground No.2. Disallowance of expenditure incurred for doctors for promotion of business - Rs.9,81,46,332/- 3. Ground No.3. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D -Rs.69,89,859/- 4. Ground No.4. Disallowance of amortization of Intangibles under section 115JB Rs 15,23,97,50,000/- 5. Ground No.5 Disallowance of stamp duty charges Rs.28

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

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

269/- 2. Ground No.2. Disallowance of expenditure incurred for doctors for promotion of business - Rs.9,81,46,332/- 3. Ground No.3. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D -Rs.69,89,859/- 4. Ground No.4. Disallowance of amortization of Intangibles under section 115JB Rs 15,23,97,50,000/- 5. Ground No.5 Disallowance of stamp duty charges Rs.28

SCARLETT DESIGNS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

68,079/- Total Income Nil____ The CPC, Banglore, allowed to carry-forward following losses: 1. Unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 2009-10 1,79,378/- 2. Short Term Capital Loss for A.Y. 2009-10 16,17,834/- 3. Business loss for A.Y. 2010-11 6,37,493/- 4. Long Term Capital Loss for A.Y. 2010-11 30,586/- Total

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,885 Total 4,25,93,802 4,83,37,429 2,82,74,504 Less: Business loss utilized in 69,41,861 - 6,4,1861 A.Y. 2005-06 Amount available for deduction 3,56,51,941 4,83,37,429 2,13,32,643 in A.Y. 2006-07 Lower of unabsorbed 3,56,51,941 depreciation on business loss

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

section 80IA(10) of the Act for Rs. 1,25,288/- after invoking the provision of section 80IE(6) of the Act. 16. At the outset we note that the learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press the impugned ground of appeal due to smallness

AVANI PETROCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT(CENTRAL), SURAT

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

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

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of Rs. 3,77,50,000/- on accommodation entries taken by the assessee from Shell Companies based on seized material. Apart from the above, during the course revision proceedings, the assessee has submitted that the provisions of Section 14A are not applicable in the investments made in Partnership Firms, as the assessee does not earn

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

269,062,228 238,043,115 — 2002-03 55,783,696 66,210,287 — 2003-04 1,608,659 2,248,668 — 2004-05 1,203,152 1,565,360 — 2005-06 467,491 415,800 10,494,200 2006-07 122,480 143,640 — 2007-08 64,804 68

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

269/- C. Capital Gain – [as per Return of income] Rs. 11,37,32,825/- D. Income from other sources [as per Return of income] Rs. 80,07,21,966/- Assessed Income Rs.18,14,03,03,585/- Brought forward losses of Rs. 2,41,44,65,028, Rs. NIL for A.Y. 2013-14 Adjusted fully by the Dept. while passing order

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CHIRIPAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

269/- as done by the Learned AO has been directed to restrict to the lump sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as administrative expenses incurred to earn exempt income. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Learned Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee’s share capital