THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

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

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

68,84,692/- Sale of SSG 93,57,242/- Total 4,85,58,403/- 7. On receipt of aforesaid Order from Ld. TPO, the Ld. AO passed assessment-order in conformity with the same and made an addition of Rs. 4,85,58,403/-, as proposed by Ld. TPO, to the taxable income of assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried

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

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

68,84,692/- Sale of SSG 93,57,242/- Total 4,85,58,403/- 7. On receipt of aforesaid Order from Ld. TPO, the Ld. AO passed assessment-order in conformity with the same and made an addition of Rs. 4,85,58,403/-, as proposed by Ld. TPO, to the taxable income of assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried

AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

374 ITR 503 has held that the issues which have been considered by the learned CIT (A) cannot be subject matter of the revision under the provisions of the section 263 of the Act on the reasoning that the assessment framed by the AO got merged with the order of the learned CIT (A). The relevant portion

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

2 per cent. We observe that in the instant facts, the assessee has computed the ALP at LIBOR plus 2.5%. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer on the Ground that the assessee has not given the comparable basis for arriving at the aforesaid rate. However, in our view, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

374 ITR 645 (Bombay High Court): The court held that IT(ss)A Nos.2/Ahd/2021 to 7/Ahd/2021 (by Revenue) IT(ss)A No.66/Ahd/2020 & ITA No.577/Ahd/2020 and CO Nos.14/Ahd/2021 to 19/Ahd/2021(by Assessee) ACIT vs. Shri Arvindbhai Amulakh Tanna Asst. Years : 2009-10 to 2015-16 30 assessments under Section 153A can be framed only on the basis of seized material

THE JCIT (OSD), CIRELCE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MIEZA SCHOOL PVT. LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARIHANT ARCADE PVT. LTD), SURAT

In the result, ground number 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed

68 of the Act. I.T.A No. 772/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 8 JCIT(OSD) vs. Mieza School Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Arihant Arcade Pvt. Ltd.) 7.2 In the result, ground number 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed. 7.3 So far as the additions in relation to section 14A of the Act are concerned

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

374/- as advance for rent not received back by the appellant. The AO did not grant the deduction for the reason that it was a capital advance which was not recoverable and not a business expenditure. I 4.4. On the other side, the appellant has claimed that it was business expenditure for the reason that the appellant company has taken

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

374/- as advance for rent not received back by the appellant. The AO did not grant the deduction for the reason that it was a capital advance which was not recoverable and not a business expenditure. I 4.4. On the other side, the appellant has claimed that it was business expenditure for the reason that the appellant company has taken

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

374/- as advance for rent not received back by the appellant. The AO did not grant the deduction for the reason that it was a capital advance which was not recoverable and not a business expenditure. I 4.4. On the other side, the appellant has claimed that it was business expenditure for the reason that the appellant company has taken

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

374/- as advance for rent not received back by the appellant. The AO did not grant the deduction for the reason that it was a capital advance which was not recoverable and not a business expenditure. I 4.4. On the other side, the appellant has claimed that it was business expenditure for the reason that the appellant company has taken

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

374/- as advance for rent not received back by the appellant. The AO did not grant the deduction for the reason that it was a capital advance which was not recoverable and not a business expenditure. I 4.4. On the other side, the appellant has claimed that it was business expenditure for the reason that the appellant company has taken