SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

92C of the Income-tax Act,1961 (the Act) and in the manner pre-scribed under that section and the relevant Rules in good faith and with due diligence as per Explanation 7 to Section 271(1) of the Act. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO without appreciating 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 hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

92C of the Income-tax Act,1961 (the Act) and in the manner pre-scribed under that section and the relevant Rules in good faith and with due diligence as per Explanation 7 to Section 271(1) of the Act. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO without appreciating that

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INA BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CICLE-1(1)(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) of Rs. 2,76,33,870.\n9. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the\nlearned AO in levying penalty despite the fact that the Appellant has not furnished\ninaccurate particulars of income either in return of income or during the course of\nassessment proceedings.\n10. The learned

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 92 CA (3) dt. 26/02/2008 made such adjustment which were upheld by Ld. CIT(A). The appellant contended that it disclosed all the material fact and adopted all appropriate method for working of Arm's length price (ALP). The TPO without rejection of such method, adopted another method for the adjustment. It is therefore, such additions cannot be termed

SUMMIT (INDIA) WATER TREATMENT & SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

92C, Thus, the A.O. has failed in application of law upon the facts on record and did not apply his mind also. I, therefore, set aside the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act, dated 23.03.2016 in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14 and, direct the A.O. to make a fresh assessment after making proper enquiries

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

92C(2)of the Act no transfer pricing adjustment is required to be made. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that in any case the instances are not comparable at all due to quantity and geographical factors 6 Sodium 78,713/- No comments for the smallness of Picosumlphat amount. 7 Tetrabutyl 31,81,642/- (a) FAR Analysis : As Above

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

92C(2)of the Act no transfer pricing adjustment is required to be made. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that in any case the instances are not comparable at all due to quantity and geographical factors 6 Sodium 78,713/- No comments for the smallness of Picosumlphat amount. 7 Tetrabutyl 31,81,642/- (a) FAR Analysis : As Above

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

92C(2)of the Act no transfer pricing adjustment is required to be made. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that in any case the instances are not comparable at all due to quantity and geographical factors 6 Sodium 78,713/- No comments for the smallness of Picosumlphat amount. 7 Tetrabutyl 31,81,642/- (a) FAR Analysis : As Above

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

92C(2)of the Act no transfer pricing adjustment is required to be made. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that in any case the instances are not comparable at all due to quantity and geographical factors 6 Sodium 78,713/- No comments for the smallness of Picosumlphat amount. 7 Tetrabutyl 31,81,642/- (a) FAR Analysis : As Above

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

92C(2)of the Act no transfer pricing adjustment is required to be made. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that in any case the instances are not comparable at all due to quantity and geographical factors 6 Sodium 78,713/- No comments for the smallness of Picosumlphat amount. 7 Tetrabutyl 31,81,642/- (a) FAR Analysis : As Above

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961('the Act') and confirmed an upward TP adjustment amounting to INR 16,79,093 on account of liaison services provided by Zydus Japan to the Appellant. (b) That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.18,18,96,302/- u/s

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) on various grounds on which the enhancement was made, 15. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) on various grounds on which the enhancement was made, 15. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) on various grounds on which the enhancement was made, 15. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) on various grounds on which the enhancement was made, 15. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore

LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS PRIVATE LIMITED,,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1349/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Lubrizol Advanced Materials Acit, बनाम/ Private Limited, Circle – 1(2), Vs. 6Th & 7Th Floor, Jaswanti Baroda. Landmark, Mehra Industrial Estate, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci 4361 B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, omit or alter grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of aforesaid matter.” 3. The ground no.1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that