HEMANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL,NADIAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN., VADODARA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 is also illegal and ALSO barred by time on the basis of records of the issuance of first notice without DIN and without proper approval of competent authority. It be so held now. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the ld. CIT(Appeals) also erred both in law and on facts in not deleting the addition

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

u/s. 148. Hence it is held that the assessment has been re- opened correctly in this case. Hence this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 10. On going through the above, the ld.CIT(A), we find, has given a very categorical finding of the fact that reopening was resorted to on account of certain payment on which TDS was required

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

u/s. 148. Hence it is held that the assessment has been re- opened correctly in this case. Hence this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 10. On going through the above, the ld.CIT(A), we find, has given a very categorical finding of the fact that reopening was resorted to on account of certain payment on which TDS was required

SHRI RUSHABHDEV SWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK JAIN SANGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar&Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Permanent Account Numbers, namely AAATR2081G (old PAN) and AAATR5288B (new PAN). The old PAN had been surrendered with the Department on 26.07.2012, and all subsequent returns of income had been filed only under the new PAN. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer, having issued the notice under section 148 on the surrendered PAN, had assumed jurisdiction over

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of 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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of 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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of 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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of 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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of 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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of 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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of 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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of 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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of 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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of 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

M/S. HIT IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held proceedings as unlawful, invalid and against the provisions of law. 3. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts holding genuine loan transaction as an accommodation entry on the basis of statement of third party without affording opportunity of cross examination. 4. Ld. CIT (A) erred

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARVIND LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARVIND MILLS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2392/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04)

permanent establishment (PE) in terms of the relevant treaty. PE is defined and explained in the Articles 5 of each treaty to which India is a signatory. The tax may be leviable only in respect of the income attributable to the PE. However, royalties, fees for technical services, interest income and dividends arising in India are taxable in India even

ALPS LIESURE HOLIDAY PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Us. We Have Noted That Despite

establish the same by material evidences on record has rendered the assessment erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” 4. Due reply was filed by the assessee to the show cause notice contending that all details and explanation with regard to the aforesaid explanation of the assessee was filed to the Assessing Officer