GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

section 57(2)(iii). The CIT(A) further ought to have allowed deductions for expenses and depreciation u/s 57. The appellant submits that it be so held. 4.0 The appellant submits that each and every expenditure debited to the Profit and Loss account and considered in computation of the total income was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

section 57(2)(iii). The CIT(A) further ought to have allowed deductions for expenses and depreciation u/s 57. The appellant submits that it be so held. 4.0 The appellant submits that each and every expenditure debited to the Profit and Loss account and considered in computation of the total income was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

482 provide and discuss the concept of transfer pricing. Section 1.482-5 of the US Transfer Pricing Regulations state that 'the tested party will be the participant in the controlled transaction whose operating profit attributable to the controlled transactions can be verified using the most reliable data and requiring the fewest and most reliable adjustments, and for which reliable data

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

482 provide and discuss the concept of transfer pricing. Section 1.482-5 of the US Transfer Pricing Regulations state that 'the tested party will be the participant in the controlled transaction whose operating profit attributable to the controlled transactions can be verified using the most reliable data and requiring the fewest and most reliable adjustments, and for which reliable data

MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 482 is inconsistent with its treatment of guarantee fees under other provisions. See P.L.R. 9410008 (Dec. 13, 1993). 39. But of Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 541, 579 (1993) (Fannie Mae provided services by buying mortgages). 37. We are in agreement with these views. There can thus be activities which benefit the group entities

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MASTEK LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

house or by having the activity performed by a third party. Thus, in such a case, an intra-group service ordinarily would be found to exist. For example, an intra-group service would normally be found where an associated enterprise repairs equipment used in manufacturing by another member of the MNE group. 7.9 A more complex analysis is necessary where

MASTEK LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD) - 1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

house or by having the activity performed by a third party. Thus, in such a case, an intra-group service ordinarily would be found to exist. For example, an intra-group service would normally be found where an associated enterprise repairs equipment used in manufacturing by another member of the MNE group. 7.9 A more complex analysis is necessary where

MASTEK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANG4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

house or by having the activity performed by a third party. Thus, in such a case, an intra-group service ordinarily would be found to exist. For example, an intra-group service would normally be found where an associated enterprise repairs equipment used in manufacturing by another member of the MNE group. 7.9 A more complex analysis is necessary where

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MASTEK LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

house or by having the activity performed by a third party. Thus, in such a case, an intra-group service ordinarily would be found to exist. For example, an intra-group service would normally be found where an associated enterprise repairs equipment used in manufacturing by another member of the MNE group. 7.9 A more complex analysis is necessary where

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHAIKH WIFE & LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHAIKH WIFE & LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHEIK LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHEIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHAIKH WIFE & LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHEIKH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHEIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHEIKH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHEIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

House Ltd reported in 194 taxman 324. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as hereunder: While exercising power under section 263, the Commissioner has to be satisfied that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and there are materials available on record which require the Commissioner to satisfy him in a, prima facie, manner that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted