ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

144C(13), determining total income at Rs.178,23,60,063/- as against the returned income of Rs.168,29,62,390/-, after making the following additions: i. disallowance of Rs.8,26,43,616/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), which was also added back while computing book profits under section 115JB; ii. disallowance of Rs.1

RAJENDRA MAGANBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.105/Ahd/2023 & 106/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively Rajendra Maganbhai Patel The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ C-1/8, Bhadran Nagar Income Tax, Circle V/S. S.V. Road, Malad West International Taxation, Mumbai – 400 064 Vadodara Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 5675 N (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2015-16 & Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]. The Core Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Credits In The Assessee’S Non- Resident External (Nre) Bank Accounts.

Section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel [hereinafter referred to as “DRP”]. The core issue in both the appeals concerns the addition made by the AO on account of credits in the assessee’s Non- Resident External (NRE) bank accounts

TOSHIBA TECHNICAL SERVICES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. THE ADIT.,(INTL.TAXN.)-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2015-16 Toshiba Technical Services Vs. Acit, International International Corporation Taxation-2 (India Project Office) Ahmedabad. B-/12 Vijay Wadi Niwas Chs Ltd. Lokmanya Tilak Road Mulund East, Mumbai Pan : Aabct 9577 D

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 9.8.2019 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2015-16. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 2 “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO erred in assessing the income of the Appellant under the normal provisions

ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH (INDIA) LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) LLP),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in granting a lesser credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS') of INR 51,842 instead of INR 63,086 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant the correct TDS

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

144C of the Act, vide assessment order dated 28.01.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.430,72,97,310/-. The AO made following additions/disallowances: ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 3 Sr. Particulars of Addition/Disallowance Amount (Rs.) No. 1 Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest 15,18,41,720 on advances to AEs 2 Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

144C of the Act, vide assessment order dated 28.01.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.430,72,97,310/-. The AO made following additions/disallowances: ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 3 Sr. Particulars of Addition/Disallowance Amount (Rs.) No. 1 Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest 15,18,41,720 on advances to AEs 2 Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

13,981/- (i.e. 5% of the adjusted total income as per Section 44C of the Act). ii) As per para 2.6 of Section 2 ‘Classification, Definition and Allocation of costs and Expenditure’ of the Appendix C ‘Accounting Procedure’ in the PSC, overhead charges for services rendered by company inside and outside India in relation to Dholka and Wavel oilfields were

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

13,981/- (i.e. 5% of the adjusted total income as per Section 44C of the Act). ii) As per para 2.6 of Section 2 ‘Classification, Definition and Allocation of costs and Expenditure’ of the Appendix C ‘Accounting Procedure’ in the PSC, overhead charges for services rendered by company inside and outside India in relation to Dholka and Wavel oilfields were

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

13,981/- (i.e. 5% of the adjusted total income as per Section 44C of the Act). ii) As per para 2.6 of Section 2 ‘Classification, Definition and Allocation of costs and Expenditure’ of the Appendix C ‘Accounting Procedure’ in the PSC, overhead charges for services rendered by company inside and outside India in relation to Dholka and Wavel oilfields were

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDIT.CIT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(13) read with 144B(l)(xxx) and (xxxi) of the Act. Thus, the final assessment order deserves to be set aside and quashed. 4. That the learned AO / TPO / DRP has erred in law and on facts in doing the TP adjustment contrary to provisions of section 92CA (3) read with Section 92C(3), thereby disregarding the detailed benchmarking

M/S. JOY GLOBAL (UK) LTD. (FORMERLY AS JOY MINING MACHINERY LTD.),KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT (INT. TAXA.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

144C dated 04.11.2019 filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel vide order dated 24.01.2020 has given certain directions and final assessment was passed on 30.07.2020 thereby making addition of Rs.10,77,70,428/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The appeal filed before us is filed belatedly

M/S. JOY GLOBAL (UK) LIMITED,(EARLIER KNOWS AS JOY MINING MACHINERY LIMITED OR 'JMML'),KOLKATTA vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXN.)-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') and the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (here-in-after referred to as 'Learned DRP') is contrary to the provisions of law and erroneous on the facts of the case and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld AO failed

LESSO BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

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

13) and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21. I.T.A No. 1698/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No 2 Lesso Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of trading related

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. THE ASSTT.CIT., CIRCLE(INTNL.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result,\nwe hold that the above services did not qualify as FTS under the\nIndia-Netherlands Tax Treaty, since the “make available” clause\nhas not been satisfied in the instant facts

144C[13] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as\n'the Act'] by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax relating to\nthe Assessment Year 2021-22.\n2. The Assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal:-\n1. The learned AO has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, in issuing the final assessment

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

13. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in levying interest under Section 234A of the Act even though the Assessee has filed its return within the due date prescribed under Section 139 of the Act. 14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

13. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in levying interest under Section 234A of the Act even though the Assessee has filed its return within the due date prescribed under Section 139 of the Act. 14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

13. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in levying interest under Section 234A of the Act even though the Assessee has filed its return within the due date prescribed under Section 139 of the Act. 14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

13. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in levying interest under Section 234A of the Act even though the Assessee has filed its return within the due date prescribed under Section 139 of the Act. 14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

13. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in levying interest under Section 234A of the Act even though the Assessee has filed its return within the due date prescribed under Section 139 of the Act. 14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned