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

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 LTD.,,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

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(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

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 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

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

4) on the value of electricity supplied by the CPP to its manufacturing units by adopting the average rate of electricity supplied to the assessee by MGVCL, DGVCL. 34. We now take ground no.5 in the assessment year 2012-13 and ground no.8 in the assessment year 2013-14: 35. In the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has pleaded

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

4) on the value of electricity supplied by the CPP to its manufacturing units by adopting the average rate of electricity supplied to the assessee by MGVCL, DGVCL. 34. We now take ground no.5 in the assessment year 2012-13 and ground no.8 in the assessment year 2013-14: 35. In the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has pleaded

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)

4 Rohit Jayantilal Soni vs. ACIT requested to tax the impugned sum received on surrender of said ULIPs under the head 'Capital gain' and in support of said contention has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Shri Girish Haribhai Trivedi (supra) The said contentions of the appellant have been considered carefully

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

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

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

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

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 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

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