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

197 (Delhi), ITA No. 4405(Del)/2009 order dated 24.12.2010: "4.2. The second ground is that the position should be seen as a whole with respect to all the transactions and not only with respect to the disputed transactions. In other words, if transfer pricing study is made for all the transactions, the variation made by the AO would

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

197 (Delhi), ITA No. 4405(Del)/2009 order dated 24.12.2010: "4.2. The second ground is that the position should be seen as a whole with respect to all the transactions and not only with respect to the disputed transactions. In other words, if transfer pricing study is made for all the transactions, the variation made by the AO would

ROTOMAG MOTORS & CONTROLS (P) LTD.,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

Appeal is allowed

TDS was deducted, the AO invoked section 40(a)(i)\nand disallowed Rs.1,42,197/-.\nBefore the AO, the assessee

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid addition be deleted 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and m law the Ld. AO under the directions of Hon’ble DRP erred in disallowing devaluation of inventory amounting to Rs. 1,40,79,555. While making this addition the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts

HAGGLUNDS DRIVES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( NOW MERGED IN BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid addition be deleted 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and m law the Ld. AO under the directions of Hon’ble DRP erred in disallowing devaluation of inventory amounting to Rs. 1,40,79,555. While making this addition the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, (INTL.TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS u/s 195 of IT Act, 1961 on payment made to Cliantha Research Mexico, Mexica for technical services during F.Y. 2012-13. The order of the A.O. is upheld. As a result, this ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 9. Both the Department and the assessee are in appeal against the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) before

ACIT, (INT. TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD vs. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS u/s 195 of IT Act, 1961 on payment made to Cliantha Research Mexico, Mexica for technical services during F.Y. 2012-13. The order of the A.O. is upheld. As a result, this ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 9. Both the Department and the assessee are in appeal against the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

197 DTR 121, decided on 17th of November, 2020, ITA No. 1074/Ahd/2023 [ITO vs. Rajeshkumar Rameshchandra Shah] A.Y. 2017-18 - 9 – in which, the issue was with regard to cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee, which the assessee had stated out of the sale proceeds and the Assessing Officer had framed the assessment by making the addition

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

TDS, and late payment of taxes aggregating to Rs.\n34,56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory\nliabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A)\naccepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded\nfrom the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest\ndisallowance under Rule

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

TDS, and late payment of taxes aggregating to Rs.\n34,56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory\nliabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A)\naccepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded\nfrom the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest\ndisallowance under Rule

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

TDS, and late payment of taxes aggregating to Rs.\n34,56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory\nliabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A)\naccepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded\nfrom the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest\ndisallowance under Rule

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

TDS of Rs. 16,897/- credited from city union bank and Prism Cement, thus the corresponding income of Rs. 1,68,970 also remain unexplained and escaped assessment. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 5 4.3 However

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

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

197/-(-) Rs. 6,96,88,570/- already offered by the assessee) is required to be made to the income of the assessee company on account of guarantee fee to be charged from the associate enterprises in addition to the amount already charged as guarantee fee by the assessee. (Upward adjustment of Rs. 10,45,32,835/-) 7. When the Assessing

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

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

197/-(-) Rs. 6,96,88,570/- already offered by the assessee) is required to be made to the income of the assessee company on account of guarantee fee to be charged from the associate enterprises in addition to the amount already charged as guarantee fee by the assessee. (Upward adjustment of Rs. 10,45,32,835/-) 7. When the Assessing

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 145(3) and applied a GP rate of 12.5%, resulting in substantial additions. The CIT(A), however, granted partial relief by restricting the GP ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 10 rate to 6%, which has been challenged in cross appeals. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it is engaged in the business

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 145(3) and applied a GP rate of 12.5%, resulting in substantial additions. The CIT(A), however, granted partial relief by restricting the GP ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 10 rate to 6%, which has been challenged in cross appeals. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it is engaged in the business

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 145(3) and applied a GP rate of 12.5%, resulting in substantial additions. The CIT(A), however, granted partial relief by restricting the GP ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 10 rate to 6%, which has been challenged in cross appeals. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it is engaged in the business