ROHIT JAYANTILAL SONI,DAHOD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION, VADODARA

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

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. I.T.A No. 1800/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Rohit Jayantilal Soni vs. ACIT 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 250 days in filing the above appeal

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 had been registered on 19.01.2021 against Sh. Viram bhai and six other family members, which included the assessee before us. It was pointed out that in A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 orders passed u/s.147 of the Act making addition to the income of the assessee were subjected to revision

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 had been registered on 19.01.2021 against Sh. Viram bhai and six other family members, which included the assessee before us. It was pointed out that in A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 orders passed u/s.147 of the Act making addition to the income of the assessee were subjected to revision

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX., AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 had been registered on 19.01.2021 against Sh. Viram bhai and six other family members, which included the assessee before us. It was pointed out that in A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 orders passed u/s.147 of the Act making addition to the income of the assessee were subjected to revision

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in above terms

2) of the Prevention of\nCorruption Act, 2018 had been registered on 19.01.2021 against\nSh. Viram bhai and six other family members, which included the\nassessee before us. It was pointed out that in A.Ys.2014-15 &\n2015-16 orders passed u/s.147 of the Act making addition to the\nincome of the assessee were subjected to revision

MINAL PRASHANT VAKIL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE. PRASHANT RASIKLAL VAKIL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 1, INTERNATIONAL TAX AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, I.T.A No. 1546/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2

SIMENS HEALTHCASE DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED ( THROUGH SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST SIEMENS LIMITED ),,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT, VADODARA-2,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1442/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09) Simens Healthcare The Principal बनाम/ Diagnostics Limited Commissioner Of Income Vs. (Through Successor In Tax Interest Siemens Limited) Vadodara-2 Birla Aurora, Level 21, Plot No. 1080, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400030 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb8542M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jet Kamar, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 14/03/2024 03/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.03.2015 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-2 (‘Pcit’), Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’), Whereby & Whereunder The Assessment Order Dated 23.10.2012 Passed By The Acit, Circle-4, Baroda (In Short ‘Ao’) Has Been Directed To

reassess by the Ld. AO afresh on the issue of escaping assessment of Rs.4,02,68,141/- under Section 40A(i) & Rs.13,23,376/- under Section 14A of the Act for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued against the order passed

RAJENDRA MAGANBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA

144C(13) OF THE ACT IS BAD-IN-\nLAW:\n1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in\nlaw, the order passed by Id. AO u/s 147 r.w.s.144C (13) of the Act is\nbad-in-law in as much as Id. AO while framing assessment order derived\nextra territorial jurisdiction to tax money earned

RAJENDRA MAGANBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA

144C(13) OF THE ACT IS BAD-IN-\nLAW:\n1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in\nlaw, the order passed by Id. AO u/s 147 r.w.s.144C (13) of the Act is\nbad-in-law in as much as Id. AO while framing assessment order derived\nextra territorial jurisdiction to tax money earned

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

reassessment would be to permit the reopening proceedings on account of change of opinion. If re-assessment is allowed, on the basis of said change of opinion, it would amount to review which is not permissible under the law. 18. In view of the above, we are of the view that the notice dated 28 March 2013 under Section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

reassessment would be to permit the reopening proceedings on account of change of opinion. If re-assessment is allowed, on the basis of said change of opinion, it would amount to review which is not permissible under the law. 18. In view of the above, we are of the view that the notice dated 28 March 2013 under Section

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets