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

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-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 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

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

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

TDS, and late payment of taxes aggregating to Rs. 34,56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory liabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A) accepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded from the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest disallowance under Rule

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

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)

1. Write "A" if "lower deduction" or "no deduction" is on account of a certificate under section 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

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

JYOTI LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. DCIT,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS @ 20%, DTAA would override the provision of this particular domestic Act since the provision of DTAA are more beneficial to the assessee.In this regard we have considered the Article 12 of DTAA which prescribes such rate of tax to be deducted @ 10%. 7. We have considered the Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows:- “(1

TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, BARODA CIR- 4,, BARODA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS in future years. It is because the ALP of such transaction has been determined at nil for the year under consideration. 12.2. Regarding the addition of Rs. 10,40,197/-, we find that the assessee has not pressed the same at the time of hearing. Therefore we dismiss the same as not pressed. Regarding the ad hoc disallowance

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

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

197 for NIL or lower rate of TDS) it is seen that the sum was neither produce before the Assessing Officer nor was the same produced before Ld. PCIT during the course of Sandip Jagdishchandra Dave vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 5– 263 proceedings. The Ld. PCIT has made a specific noting that even though the issue of TDS were

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

TDS on salary. Accordingly, AO held that even otherwise it is disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee

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

TDS on salary. Accordingly, AO held that even otherwise it is disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee