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

X of the Act. 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below, and duly examined the material available on record. 14. The issue relates to the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO and confirmed by the CIT(A) by imputing notional interest on receivables outstanding from AEs beyond a credit period

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I T Act. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2,47,943/- and Rs.19,36,095/- pertaining to A.Yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively illegally for number of years and instead of refunding the ill-gotten amount to Govt. account, the assessee chose to invest the money further as mentioned supra

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2,47,943/- and Rs.19,36,095/- pertaining to A.Yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively illegally for number of years and instead of refunding the ill-gotten amount to Govt. account, the assessee chose to invest the money further as mentioned supra

RAVINDRABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Patel vs. ITO A.Y: 2015-16 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee contended that all the conditions of sections 54B and 54F were duly complied with. It was submitted

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

56 to 60 of file no 5, wherein they had finalized the deal at USD 925/PMT for 88 MT (5X20 FCL) on 14.02.2014 4.1.4 Page No. 31 to 34 of file no 5, wherein he had confirmed the transfer of their payment of 10X20 fcl i.e. Total payment of USD 890-300 = 590X180= USD 106200 on 25.06.2014 through channels other

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

56 to 60 of file no 5, wherein they had finalized the deal at USD 925/PMT for 88 MT (5X20 FCL) on 14.02.2014 4.1.4 Page No. 31 to 34 of file no 5, wherein he had confirmed the transfer of their payment of 10X20 fcl i.e. Total payment of USD 890-300 = 590X180= USD 106200 on 25.06.2014 through channels other

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

56,159 x Rs.5.39] A.Y.2008-09 Rs.1,62,26,344 [RMB 30,10,467 x Rs.5.39] I.T.A No. 1517 & 1621/Ahd/2019 A.Y.. 2008-09 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. 2.1. However during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee Company vide its letter dated 17-11-2011 claimed the Tax Credit in respect of these taxes withheld in China

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

56,159 x Rs.5.39] A.Y.2008-09 Rs.1,62,26,344 [RMB 30,10,467 x Rs.5.39] I.T.A No. 1517 & 1621/Ahd/2019 A.Y.. 2008-09 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. 2.1. However during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee Company vide its letter dated 17-11-2011 claimed the Tax Credit in respect of these taxes withheld in China

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

SMT. SHITAL SANJAYBHAI PATEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) of Act. 8. The submissions made by the appellant before the Ld Assessing Officer/CIT(A)-VI has not properly appreciated leading to erroneous conclusion 9. The order passed by the LdCIT(A)-VI is bad in law and against the facts of the case and judicial pronouncement. 10. The appellant crave and reserve his right

SHRI SANJAYBHAI RAMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) of Act. 8. The submissions made by the appellant before the Ld Assessing Officer/CIT(A)-VI has not properly appreciated leading to erroneous conclusion 9. The order passed by the LdCIT(A)-VI is bad in law and against the facts of the case and judicial pronouncement. 10. The appellant crave and reserve his right

SHRI JIGNESH RAMJIBHAI PATEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) of Act. 8. The submissions made by the appellant before the Ld Assessing Officer/CIT(A)-VI has not properly appreciated leading to erroneous conclusion 9. The order passed by the LdCIT(A)-VI is bad in law and against the facts of the case and judicial pronouncement. 10. The appellant crave and reserve his right