KALYAN JEWELS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Kalyan Jewells P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) 49, Super Mall Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Lal Bungalow, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aacck 4717 B

delay occurred which is prayed to be kindly condoned. 5) On the facts no interest u/s.234-A, 234-B, and 234-D of the Act ought to have been levied.” 5. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a private limited company. It has filed its return of income for the Asst.Year 2009-10 on 30.9.2009 declaring income

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM INVESTMENTS,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

197 (Guj) and the decision of the co-ordinate bench in ACIT vs. Bright Star Investments (P) Ltd. 120 TTJ 498 (Mum). The CIT(A) has taken cognizance of the aforesaid decisions and adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee as under: “3.2.1. In appeal the learned Authorized Representative submitted that- "Conversion of shares from Stock in trade

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

197 (Guj) and the decision of the co-ordinate bench in ACIT vs. Bright Star Investments (P) Ltd. 120 TTJ 498 (Mum). The CIT(A) has taken cognizance of the aforesaid decisions and adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee as under: “3.2.1. In appeal the learned Authorized Representative submitted that- "Conversion of shares from Stock in trade

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

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

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 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

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),, 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