THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The maintainability of the very proceeding is under challenge before us to this effect that the Transfer Pricing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) has erred in exceeding the jurisdiction by passing the transfer pricing order under

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. ITA No.805

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. ITA No.805

HAZIRA PORT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CICLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the above terms

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital. During the subject assessment year, the assessee was engaged in the business of developing, owning, operating and maintaining port facilities at Hazira under the Gujarat Maritime Board Act. The assessee filed it’s return of income on 29.11.2017, declaring total income of Rs. 10,22,66,750/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and during

ROHIT JAYANTILAL SONI,DAHOD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION, VADODARA

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

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Capital gain'. Therefore, the impugned action of the Ld. AO in making the impugned addition at Rs 22,01,977/- is CONFIRMED. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 raised in appeal is DISMISSED.” 5. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(Appela-13) erred

INOX RENEWABLES LIMITED,VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1)(2), , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1731/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Inox Renewables Ltd. Vs. Acit, Cir.1(1)(2) Vadodara. Abs Towers 2Nd Floor Old Padra Road Vadodara 390 007 Pan : Aacci 4628 K

section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee-company was incorporated on 11.11.2010 and 99.98% of equity capital was held by holding company viz. M/s.Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd.(GFL). According to the assessee, it has acquired wind energy division of GFL during the accounting year relevant to this assessment year. It claimed depreciation. However, its claim

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

144C(10) and holding that in view of the long term I.T.A No. 702 & 729/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 5 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT/Dy. CIT vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd capital gains claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38), disallowance u/s. 14A could be made. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that ii was not open

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ARVIND LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

Section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] dated 23.01.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. Since the issues are common and appeals are inter-connected, the same are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 349 & 466/Ahd/2024 Assessee : Arvind Limited Asst. Year

ARVIND LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

Section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] dated 23.01.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. Since the issues are common and appeals are inter-connected, the same are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 349 & 466/Ahd/2024 Assessee : Arvind Limited Asst. Year

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return

SUZUKI MOTOR GUJARAT PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDANAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

144C(3) and 144B of the Act on the ground that the same was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, inasmuch as the Suzuki Motor Gujarat Pvt Ltd Vs. PCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 4– Assessing Officer has failed to examine the claim of depreciation made by the assessee as a consequence of claiming

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

144C(3) read with Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that in respect of Transfer Pricing addition, the TPO passed an order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on 31.12.2015 thereby quantifying an upward adjustment of Rs.60,83,440/- on International Transaction of the assessee. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance under Section