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

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

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

price will jump to that extent until and unless some material is available on record. Even at the time of hearing, a question was put up to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee about the value of the land for the purpose of Stamp duty, it was communicated to us that the land was transferred

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

price charged and actually realized which is allowable ITA Nos. 442 & 443 n 447 & 448 Ahd 2023 Assessee: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals) AYs : 2010-11 & 2013-14 - 21– as deduction. In that view of the matter, we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and allow Ground No.5

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

price charged and actually realized which is allowable ITA Nos. 442 & 443 n 447 & 448 Ahd 2023 Assessee: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals) AYs : 2010-11 & 2013-14 - 21– as deduction. In that view of the matter, we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and allow Ground No.5

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

price charged and actually realized which is allowable ITA Nos. 442 & 443 n 447 & 448 Ahd 2023 Assessee: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals) AYs : 2010-11 & 2013-14 - 21– as deduction. In that view of the matter, we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and allow Ground No.5

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

price charged and actually realized which is allowable ITA Nos. 442 & 443 n 447 & 448 Ahd 2023 Assessee: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals) AYs : 2010-11 & 2013-14 - 21– as deduction. In that view of the matter, we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and allow Ground No.5

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

256 ITR 357 (Raj) held that where vehicle was purchased by the firm used by it for the purpose of its business but it was registered in the name of one of the 11 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 partners then the firm would be entitled

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

256 ITR 357 (Raj) held that where vehicle was purchased by the firm used by it for the purpose of its business but it was registered in the name of one of the 11 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 partners then the firm would be entitled

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

256 ITR 357 (Raj) held that where vehicle was purchased by the firm used by it for the purpose of its business but it was registered in the name of one of the 11 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 partners then the firm would be entitled

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

256 (Revenue Appeal) 1782/Ahd/2016 2005-06 20,15,841 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 33,59,735 (Revenue Appeal) 12.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had claimed damages paid under Section 14B of the PF Act as allowable business expenditure. The assessee argued that these damages were compensatory in nature, arising due to delayed payments

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

256 (Revenue Appeal) 1782/Ahd/2016 2005-06 20,15,841 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 33,59,735 (Revenue Appeal) 12.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had claimed damages paid under Section 14B of the PF Act as allowable business expenditure. The assessee argued that these damages were compensatory in nature, arising due to delayed payments

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

256 (Revenue Appeal) 1782/Ahd/2016 2005-06 20,15,841 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 33,59,735 (Revenue Appeal) 12.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had claimed damages paid under Section 14B of the PF Act as allowable business expenditure. The assessee argued that these damages were compensatory in nature, arising due to delayed payments

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

256 (Revenue Appeal) 1782/Ahd/2016 2005-06 20,15,841 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 33,59,735 (Revenue Appeal) 12.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had claimed damages paid under Section 14B of the PF Act as allowable business expenditure. The assessee argued that these damages were compensatory in nature, arising due to delayed payments