RAMANLAL JIVRAJBHAI PATEL,THANE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel The Ito B-2003, Shreeji Heights Vs Ward-1 (Palm Beach Road, Navi Mumbai – Himatnagar Thane, Nerul Node –Iii So) Sector 46A, Plot No.1, 1A, 1B, 1C Thane 400 706 Maharashtra Pan: Abcpp 1551 G .. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Patel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20/02/2024 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ao’] Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Facts Of The Case: Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

House Property, Profits and gains of Business or Profession and has and Other Sources. The assessee filed his return of income on 06/01/2017 for the AY 2016-17 declaring a total income of Rs.28,25,340/-. The case was subsequently selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 19/09/2017. The Assessing Officer

SHRI MITHUN H. BHAYANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,-5(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has contested two grounds of appeal in the instant appeal pertaining to treating capital gain of Rs. 9,78,995/- as short term capital gain I.T.A No. 481/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Shri Mithun H. Bhayani vs. ITO which was actually long

SHRI PRASHANT MANHARLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.08/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Prashant Manharlal Shah The Income-Tax बनाम/ Prop. Prashant Auto Parts Officer, Vs. 4, India Estate Ward-7(1), B/H. Relief Hotel Ahmedabad. Sanand Road, Sarkhej Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeaps 0277 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr.Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By :

Section 54 of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ld. Assessing Officer not granted the deduction of expenses for Stamp Duty Rs.42,145/- Rs.40,000/- GEB Charges Rs.2,02,920/- life time maintenance paid by Cheque No. 283228 Rs.25000/- termite charges and Rs.7,89,000/- the amount of extra work of Plumbing-painting and additional work. ii. During the course

PRAGNESH AMRUTLAL GAJJAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

80C 1,50,000 of the Act (iii) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 19,343 80D of the Act I.T.A No. 2207/Ahd/2025 Pragnesh Amrutlal Gajjar, A.Y. 2019-20 (iv) Disallowance of Loss from house property 66,264 TOTAL 4,85,607 Accordingly, the total income of appellant was assessed at Rs. 9,61,427/- as against the returned income

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

property or unique assets that distinguish it from potential uncontrolled comparables. Thus, in a sense, the tested party would have lesser risk as compared to the other transacting party or the real entrepreneur. 22. As per the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010, when applying a cost plus, resale price or transactional net margin method, it is necessary to choose

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

property or unique assets that distinguish it from potential uncontrolled comparables. Thus, in a sense, the tested party would have lesser risk as compared to the other transacting party or the real entrepreneur. 22. As per the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010, when applying a cost plus, resale price or transactional net margin method, it is necessary to choose