MADHU SILICA FOUNDATION,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Income Tax Act. The AO imposed tax on this amount at the rate of 60% as per Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Madhu Silica Foundation vs. ITO Asst. Year –2022-23 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee was incorporated only on October 25, 2021, and received large sums from Madhu

PATEL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), SURAT, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 80G of the Act in respect of a donation to the "Late Vithalbhai Gobarbhai Patel Foundation". The assessee submitted before Principal CIT that the provision for expected credit loss was already added back in the return through ICDS adjustments and that a net increase in income of ₹1,07,53,745/- was duly reported and offered for taxation

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

section 143(2)\nwere issued and duly served. The Assessing Officer, after examining the\nmaterial placed on record, made various disallowances and additions under\ndifferent heads, determining the assessed income for each year as set out\nbelow. The Assessing Office completed the assessment by passing order u/s\n143(3) of the Act. The details of the assessment

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

section 143(2)\nwere issued and duly served. The Assessing Officer, after examining the\nmaterial placed on record, made various disallowances and additions under\ndifferent heads, determining the assessed income for each year as set out\nbelow. The Assessing Office completed the assessment by passing order u/s\n143(3) of the Act. The details of the assessment

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

section 143(2)\nwere issued and duly served. The Assessing Officer, after examining the\nmaterial placed on record, made various disallowances and additions under\ndifferent heads, determining the assessed income for each year as set out\nbelow. The Assessing Office completed the assessment by passing order u/s\n143(3) of the Act. The details of the assessment

DAKSHIN GUJARAT SAMAST CHAUDHARI SAMAJ CHERITABLE TRUST FEDERATION,SURAT vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

68 years, has categorically affirmed that he is not familiar with the\nuse of computers, nor does he operate the e-filing account of the trust. The\napplications filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and section 80G

DAKSHIN GUJARAT SAMAST CHAUDHARI SAMAJ CHERITABLE TRUST FEDERATION,SURAT vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

68 years, has categorically affirmed that he is not familiar with the use of computers, nor does he operate the e-filing account of the trust. The applications filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and section 80G

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.

80G will be allowed after allowing all other deduction of chapter VIA. The Ld. CIT (A) accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO. Being aggrieve by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 43. The Ld. DR before us submitted that the amount of donation needs to be allocated to the Baddi Unit

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.

80G will be allowed after allowing all other deduction of chapter VIA. The Ld. CIT (A) accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO. Being aggrieve by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 43. The Ld. DR before us submitted that the amount of donation needs to be allocated to the Baddi Unit

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.

80G will be allowed after allowing all other deduction of chapter VIA. The Ld. CIT (A) accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO. Being aggrieve by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 43. The Ld. DR before us submitted that the amount of donation needs to be allocated to the Baddi Unit

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.

80G will be allowed after allowing all other deduction of chapter VIA. The Ld. CIT (A) accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO. Being aggrieve by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 43. The Ld. DR before us submitted that the amount of donation needs to be allocated to the Baddi Unit

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

80G and 80GGB of the Act for the donations made by the undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. The deduction under section 80-IA of the Act is allowed to the assessee with respect to the business referred therein is carried on by the assessee. That particular business is known as the undertaking

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

80G and 80GGB of the Act for the donations made by the undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. The deduction under section 80-IA of the Act is allowed to the assessee with respect to the business referred therein is carried on by the assessee. That particular business is known as the undertaking

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

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

80G of the Act. 7.2 That the Ld. AO/DRP erred on facts and in law in holding that payments made by the appellant were in the nature of advertisement and publicity expense on which tax was required to be deducted at source and consequently the contribution claimed was disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 8. That

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

80G of the Act. 7.2 That the Ld. AO/DRP erred on facts and in law in holding that payments made by the appellant were in the nature of advertisement and publicity expense on which tax was required to be deducted at source and consequently the contribution claimed was disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 8. That