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)

section 144C(3) of IT Act, 1961 which is requested to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appela-13) erred in making addition of Rs. 22,01,977/- being amount of difference between premium paid and surrender value of ULIP. (3) Prayer: (i) Drop the proposed addition of Rs. 22,01,977/- to the income of the applicant

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

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

PRALAY PRADYOTKANTI GHOSH,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.298/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh The Ito बनाम/ 22, Konark Society Ward-1 Nr. Railway Colony International Taxation V/S. Jawahar Chowk, Sabarmati Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abypg 6172 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 01/06/2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 22/10/2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh Vs. Ito (Intl.Taxation) Asst. Year : 2018-19

capital gains. The assessee also received salary income from his employer (Oceaneering International GMBH) to the tune of Rs.61,74,262/- on which TDS of Rs.18,35,210/- u/s.192 of the Act was deducted, however, the same was shown as “exempt income” in the return of income filed by the assessee. 2.1. The assessee was requested to provide details

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

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]

144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, by making various additions / disallowances. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has given partial relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee and Revenue, both are in appeal before the Tribunal

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]

144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, by making various additions / disallowances. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has given partial relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee and Revenue, both are in appeal before the Tribunal

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

144C of the act vide order dated 23rd Feb, 2012 whereas various additions were made. Assessee has not filed any objection against draft assessment order before the dispute resolution panel. Being aggrieved with the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

144C of the act vide order dated 23rd Feb, 2012 whereas various additions were made. Assessee has not filed any objection against draft assessment order before the dispute resolution panel. Being aggrieved with the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

144C of the Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. ITA No.2030/Ahd/2016 and 3 others A.Y. 2011-12 2 First we take ITA No. 2035/Ahd/2016, an appeal by the assessee for the AY 2011-12 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in its capacity as jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the Appellant Company. Aggrieved by the order, the Appellant has preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has also decided the appeal vide its order dated 28.03.2018. In response thereto, the Appellant

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in its capacity as jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the Appellant Company. Aggrieved by the order, the Appellant has preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has also decided the appeal vide its order dated 28.03.2018. In response thereto, the Appellant

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in its capacity as jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the Appellant Company. Aggrieved by the order, the Appellant has preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has also decided the appeal vide its order dated 28.03.2018. In response thereto, the Appellant

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in its capacity as jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the Appellant Company. Aggrieved by the order, the Appellant has preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has also decided the appeal vide its order dated 28.03.2018. In response thereto, the Appellant

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

144C(5) The DRP procedure can only be initiated by an assessee objecting to the draft assessment order. This would enable correction in the proposed order (draft assessment order) before a final assessment order is passed. Therefore, we are of the view that in the present facts this issue could be agitated before and rectified

PRABODH MOHANLAL SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to the Asst. Year 2018-19. I.T.A No. 331/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 2 Prabodh Mohanlal Shah vs. ACIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Non Resident Indian residing in United States of America has shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.56

DANIEL MEASUREMENT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Roy

144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2010-11 challenging the addition of CENVAT Credit receivable. Daniel Measurement Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2010-11 2. The assessee company engaged in the business of Design & marketing of gas and liquid measurement and analytic products, systems, services and solutions