ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13), determining total income at Rs.178,23,60,063/- as against the returned income of Rs.168,29,62,390/-, after making the following additions: i. disallowance

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad[hereinafter referred to as "Assessing Officer/AO”], for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee has filed its appeal challenging the confirmation of various additions and disallowances

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad[hereinafter referred to as "Assessing Officer/AO”], for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee has filed its appeal challenging the confirmation of various additions and disallowances

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) (1) AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 144C(3) of the Act, adopted the TPO’s findings and passed an assessment order determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.80,85,45,535/-, after making the following adjustments: and CO No.10/Ahd/2024 (By Assessee) The Asstt.CIT vs. Inductotherm (India) Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year:2016-17 3 - Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.2,67,13,481/-. - Disallowance

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

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

GFL LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of ₹4,03,67,698/- forms part of the total transfer pricing addition of ₹6,76,32,335/- as mentioned in the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C

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

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

M/S. ATUL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee is in the business of manufacturing and sale of range of chemicals like dyes, agro chemicals, bulk drugs, commodity chemicals and intermediates. Assessment for the impugned year was framed by incorporating IT(TP)A No.446/Ahd/2015 2 • the Transfer Pricing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ASTRAL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 2 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: The First Appellate Authority Which Has Been Decided By The Ld. Cit(A) Vide The Impugned Order. The Revenue Is In Appeal Us Before Us.

section 144C(3)/144(B) of the Act on 26-11-2021 at total income of Rs. 1,75,87,35,950/-. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) had made the following additions: - TP Adjustment 26,32,930 Disallowance

ZYDUS HOSPIRA ONCOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

144C(13) r.w.s. 1448 of the I.T. ITA Nos. 948 & 949/Ahd/2024 Zydus Hospira Oncology Private Limited vs. Pr.CIT Asst. Years –2016-17 & 2017-18 Act for A.Y. 2016-17 could not be said to be either 'erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The learned PCIT further erred in sel-aside the said Assessment Order and directing

ZYDUS HOSPIRA ONCOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

144C(13) r.w.s. 1448 of the I.T. ITA Nos. 948 & 949/Ahd/2024 Zydus Hospira Oncology Private Limited vs. Pr.CIT Asst. Years –2016-17 & 2017-18 Act for A.Y. 2016-17 could not be said to be either 'erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The learned PCIT further erred in sel-aside the said Assessment Order and directing

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

144C(3) & 144B of the Income Tax on 29-05-2021 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and none of the conditions as envisaged under Section 263 are fulfilled. 2. Ground No. 2 Issue of claim of deduction under Section 32AC of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.264/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Acit Adani Enterprises Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-1 (1)(1) Adani Corporate House V/S. Ahmedabad Shantigram Near Vaishno Devi Circle S.G. Highway Khodiyar Ahmedabad- 382 421 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 2804 L अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

144C(3) and Section 144B of the Act. The ACIT vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd. Asst. Year : 2018-19 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Adani Enterprises Ltd., engaged in the business of trading various commodities, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year, declaring an income of Rs.23,43,45,310/-. The case

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

3) in pursuance of the order of Dispute Resolution Panel us 144C, is erroneous and requires to be modified it is submitted that it be so held now. 2. The learned AO erred in disallowing claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(9) 11,7187,247/- without taking proper cognizance of the order of the Gujarat High Court and not following

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

3) in pursuance of the order of Dispute Resolution Panel us 144C, is erroneous and requires to be modified it is submitted that it be so held now. 2. The learned AO erred in disallowing claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(9) 11,7187,247/- without taking proper cognizance of the order of the Gujarat High Court and not following

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

3) in pursuance of the order of Dispute Resolution Panel us 144C, is erroneous and requires to be modified it is submitted that it be so held now. 2. The learned AO erred in disallowing claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(9) 11,7187,247/- without taking proper cognizance of the order of the Gujarat High Court and not following

ADANI POWER LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LIMITED NOW AMALGAMATED WITH ADANI POWER LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal challenging the validity of 263 order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3– crores should have been disallowed. Therefore, PCIT held that the excess amount of Rs. 99,10,385/- debited on account of CSR expenses was required to be disallowed by the Assessing Officer and failure to do so made the assessment order as being erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5. The assessee

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE (JAO-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE1(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

144C (3) of the Act. Addition Rs. 31,37,991: 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO and TPO in disallowaing Rs. 31,37,991 u/s 37 of the Act. 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in invoking section 37 of the Act without