NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

gains would be determined in the prescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.  Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

gains would be determined in the prescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.  Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-\n13 & 2013-14 filed by the assessee are partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee\nfor AY 2014-15 is allowed

gains would be determined in the\nprescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.\nSection 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or\nProfession has been amended to provide that\nin case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the\namount of purchase price paid.\nin case

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)

92B and 92BA of the Act respectively, the case was referred to the TPO, Ahmedabad by and under letter dated 13.02.2018 for determination of Arm’s Length Price in terms of the CBDT Instruction No. 03/2016 dated 10.03.2016 upon getting due approval from the Competent Authority by the then AO. Notice thereafter on 22nd July, 2017 under Section

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

92B of the Act, and accordingly requires\nbenchmarking. At the same time, the Co-ordinate Bench also held\nthat a corporate guarantee issued by a parent company in favour\nof its subsidiary cannot be equated with a bank guarantee issued\nby a commercial bank. Relying on the decisions, the Bench\ndetermined the arm's length commission rate

THE ACTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

92B of the Act, and accordingly requires\nbenchmarking. At the same time, the Co-ordinate Bench also held\nthat a corporate guarantee issued by a parent company in favour\nof its subsidiary cannot be equated with a bank guarantee issued\nby a commercial bank. Relying on the decisions, the Bench\ndetermined the arm's length commission rate

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

92B of the Act, and accordingly requires\nbenchmarking. At the same time, the Co-ordinate Bench also held\nthat a corporate guarantee issued by a parent company in favour\nof its subsidiary cannot be equated with a bank guarantee issued\nby a commercial bank. Relying on the decisions, the Bench\ndetermined the arm's length commission rate

THE ACTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

92B of the Act, and accordingly requires\nbenchmarking. At the same time, the Co-ordinate Bench also held\nthat a corporate guarantee issued by a parent company in favour\nof its subsidiary cannot be equated with a bank guarantee issued\nby a commercial bank. Relying on the decisions, the Bench\ndetermined the arm's length commission rate

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

capital account, the impugned expenses did not qualify as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. He also held that the expenditure, even otherwise, was only notional loss, and therefore, also not allowable to the assessee. The AO noted that similar disallowance had been made in the earlier years also in the case of the assessee i.e. Asst

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

gains derived from the activity of manufacturing. 24.2 On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the finding of the AO. 24.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 24.4 The learned AR before us submitted that the grant received by it has direct nexus and therefore