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

price and the issue price is a benefit to employees. Therefore, deferred employee compensation is a component of employee remuneration and actual loss to the company. Therefore, this is only a mode of discharging the liability of employees, and it is an ascertained liability. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the amount debited/amortized in ITR of earlier years had been correctly

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

prices from 80IB/IC units to the company. xi. Why not after excluding other income like royalty, technological r-license income, export incentives, misc. Income, and sundries etc. which are not eligible for 80IB/IC deduction, the determination of eligible profits is done, xii. The company does trading activity also. Why the trading profit should not be excluded for determining eligible income

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

reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.” ix. M/s. Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit

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

reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.” ix. M/s. Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

price to the director, he ought to have dropped the reopening of assessment on this issue. Thus, a perusal of record would indicate that there was no information much less fresh information which can authorise him to form an opinion or record reasons showing escapement of income. We are satisfied that no information was available with the AO to harbor

GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4, NOW, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

price to the director, he ought to have dropped the reopening of assessment on this issue. Thus, a perusal of record would indicate that there was no information much less fresh information which can authorise him to form an opinion or record reasons showing escapement of income. We are satisfied that no information was available with the AO to harbor

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reopening of reassessment is liable to be dismissed. On Merits (A.Y. 2010-11) 13. The additions have been made by the AO on primarily two counts for the impugned year under consideration. Firstly, the AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in providing contrived losses to various parties on sale of certain illiquid commodities

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reopening of reassessment is liable to be dismissed. On Merits (A.Y. 2010-11) 13. The additions have been made by the AO on primarily two counts for the impugned year under consideration. Firstly, the AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in providing contrived losses to various parties on sale of certain illiquid commodities

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reopening of reassessment is liable to be dismissed. On Merits (A.Y. 2010-11) 13. The additions have been made by the AO on primarily two counts for the impugned year under consideration. Firstly, the AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in providing contrived losses to various parties on sale of certain illiquid commodities

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reopening of reassessment is liable to be dismissed. On Merits (A.Y. 2010-11) 13. The additions have been made by the AO on primarily two counts for the impugned year under consideration. Firstly, the AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in providing contrived losses to various parties on sale of certain illiquid commodities

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reopening of reassessment is liable to be dismissed. On Merits (A.Y. 2010-11) 13. The additions have been made by the AO on primarily two counts for the impugned year under consideration. Firstly, the AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in providing contrived losses to various parties on sale of certain illiquid commodities

SHANTABEN PARASMAL JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act; (a) Only on account of information received from the DIT(I &C), Ahmedabad and (b) he has not applied his mind for the reassessment proceedings as; (i) in the reasons for the reassessment there is no reference of return of income filed and/or its assessment position. (ii) at one place

HASMUKH UGARCHAND GADHECHA, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.591/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hasmukh Ugarchand The Ito बनाम/ Gadhecha, Huf Ward-5(2)(2) V/S. 3Rd Floor, Anjalee House Ahmedabad – 380 015 Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaahg 7194 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 26/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, Huf Vs. Ito Asstt.Year : 2013-14 2 “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & In The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act.

reopened u/s.147 of the Act by way of issuance of notice dated 30/03/2021 u/s.148 of the Act. 4.1. The reasons for re-opening of the assessment were that a search and survey action was carried out at the residence and office premises of one Shri Shirish Chandra Shah and at the residence of his key-employees and associates on 09/04/2013

SHRI JANI PARASMAL VAGHMAL (HUF),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1354/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Jain Parasmal Vaghmal(Huf), I.T.O., 27, Vijay Society, Vs. Ward-3(1)(5), New Khanderao Road, Vadodara. Baroda.

reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act; Only on account of information received from the DIT(I &C), Ahmedabad and 2- The AO during the assessment proceedings has not provided opportunity of cross examination of Shri Mukesh chokshi, therefore the assessment order framed under section 147 of the Act is invalid. 3- Your honors are requested to consider

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Transfer Pricing addition :Rs. 60,83,440/- ii. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) :Rs. 1,68,88,558/- iii. Disallowance u/s 35(2AB) :Rs. 3,82,99,313/- iv. Disallowance u/s 14A :Rs. 55,64,491/- v. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB :Rs.16,34,58,692/- vi. Disallowance of Foreign Currency Loss :Rs.25,39,60,000/- vii. Inadmissible expense

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Transfer Pricing addition :Rs. 60,83,440/- ii. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) :Rs. 1,68,88,558/- iii. Disallowance u/s 35(2AB) :Rs. 3,82,99,313/- iv. Disallowance u/s 14A :Rs. 55,64,491/- v. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB :Rs.16,34,58,692/- vi. Disallowance of Foreign Currency Loss :Rs.25,39,60,000/- vii. Inadmissible expense

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transfers, RTGS, and clearings in various bank accounts of the HUF, with no explanation or supporting evidence. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 1,27,75,176/- to SBPL Finance, which is a non-filer with no return of income filed, and also a loan of Rs. 18,30,000/- to Shreeji

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transfers, RTGS, and clearings in various bank accounts of the HUF, with no explanation or supporting evidence. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 1,27,75,176/- to SBPL Finance, which is a non-filer with no return of income filed, and also a loan of Rs. 18,30,000/- to Shreeji

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transfers, RTGS, and clearings in various bank accounts of the HUF, with no explanation or supporting evidence. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 1,27,75,176/- to SBPL Finance, which is a non-filer with no return of income filed, and also a loan of Rs. 18,30,000/- to Shreeji