SHRI SANDEEP JAGDISHCHANDRA DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. TEH PR. CIT -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 197 for NIL or lower rate of TDS) it is seen that the sum was neither produce before the Assessing

EAGLE STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

197. 2. Write "B" if no deduction is on account of declaration under section 197A. 3. Write "C" if deduction is on higher rate on account of non-furnishing of PAN by the deductee. 4. Write "Y" if no deduction is on account of payment below threshold limit specified in the Income-tax Act, 1961. Write "T" if no deduction

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR DEVICHAND LODHA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).The Ld.Cit(A) Has Sustained The Impugned Penalty.

section 194A of the act. Thereafter the assessing officer has referred the case to the JCIT,TDS Range for initiation of penalty u/s 271 C of the act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee has brought to the I.T.A No. 942/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 2 Shri Ashokkumar Devichand Lodha vs. ACIT notice of the JCIT TDS

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

197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is concerned. However, the figure of Rs.8,43,42,316/- as worked out by the ld.CIT(A) is not correct, therefore this issue is required

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

197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is concerned. However, the figure of Rs.8,43,42,316/- as worked out by the ld.CIT(A) is not correct, therefore this issue is required

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

197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is concerned. However, the figure of Rs.8,43,42,316/- as worked out by the ld.CIT(A) is not correct, therefore this issue is required

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

197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is concerned. However, the figure of Rs.8,43,42,316/- as worked out by the ld.CIT(A) is not correct, therefore this issue is required

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

197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is concerned. However, the figure of Rs.8,43,42,316/- as worked out by the ld.CIT(A) is not correct, therefore this issue is required

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

197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is concerned. However, the figure of Rs.8,43,42,316/- as worked out by the ld.CIT(A) is not correct, therefore this issue is required

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