M/S. VISHAL ENGINEERS & GALVANIZERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

5. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that in order to invoke section 45(4) of the Act conditions have to be fulfilled. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that there was no transfer of assets by way of distribution of Capital assets, neither there

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

5% and therefore as per 2nd Proviso S. 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

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

5% and therefore as per 2nd Proviso S. 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

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

5% and therefore as per 2nd Proviso S. 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

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

5% and therefore as per 2nd Proviso S. 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

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

5% and therefore as per 2nd Proviso S. 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

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

5. The time limit for completion of the assessment has been specified in section 153 of the Act. As per the provisions of sub-section (1) to section 153 of the Act, no assessment order shall be made u/s.143(3) or 144 of the Act at any time after the expiry of 21 months from the end of the assessment

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

section 80IA(4) on merit, we would like to first to address the issue, whether delay in filing appeal in the Asstt.Year 2005- 06 deserves to be condoned or not. In support of his submissions, application for condonation of delay and affidavit of Director of assessee-company, Welspoun Projects Ltd. (formerly known as MSK Projects (India) Ltd. Shri Sandeep Garg

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

section 80IA(4) on merit, we would like to first to address the issue, whether delay in filing appeal in the Asstt.Year 2005- 06 deserves to be condoned or not. In support of his submissions, application for condonation of delay and affidavit of Director of assessee-company, Welspoun Projects Ltd. (formerly known as MSK Projects (India) Ltd. Shri Sandeep Garg

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section 147 were without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 5.1 It was contended that a search and seizure action under section

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section 147 were without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 5.1 It was contended that a search and seizure action under section

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section 147 were without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 5.1 It was contended that a search and seizure action under section

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section 147 were without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 5.1 It was contended that a search and seizure action under section

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section 147 were without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 5.1 It was contended that a search and seizure action under section

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

reassessment in unabated years, additions must be based on specific incriminating material found during the search. The court held that in the absence of such evidence, additions to income disclosed in the regular books cannot be made. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is contingent on the existence of incriminating material discovered during

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

reassessment in unabated years, additions must be based on specific incriminating material found during the search. The court held that in the absence of such evidence, additions to income disclosed in the regular books cannot be made. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is contingent on the existence of incriminating material discovered during

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

reassessment in unabated years, additions must be based on specific incriminating material found during the search. The court held that in the absence of such evidence, additions to income disclosed in the regular books cannot be made. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is contingent on the existence of incriminating material discovered during

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

reassessment in unabated years, additions must be based on specific incriminating material found during the search. The court held that in the absence of such evidence, additions to income disclosed in the regular books cannot be made. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is contingent on the existence of incriminating material discovered during