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)

144C of the Act, which were in challenge before us, needed to be set aside and all the additions made by the AO needed to be deleted. In A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015- 16, it was contended that since the order passed u/s 147 of the Act which was sought to be revised by the Ld. PCIT was void therefore

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

144C of the Act, which were in\nchallenge before us, needed to be set aside and all the additions\nmade by the AO needed to be deleted. In A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-\n16, it was contended that since the order passed u/s 147 of the Act\nwhich was sought to be revised by the Ld. PCIT was void\ntherefore

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.105/Ahd/2023 & 106/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively Rajendra Maganbhai Patel The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ C-1/8, Bhadran Nagar Income Tax, Circle V/S. S.V. Road, Malad West International Taxation, Mumbai – 400 064 Vadodara Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 5675 N (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2015-16 & Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]. The Core Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Credits In The Assessee’S Non- Resident External (Nre) Bank Accounts.

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act is bad-in-law in as much as Id. AO while framing assessment order derived extra territorial jurisdiction to tax money earned in any country outside India by NRI. Such action of Id.AO is totally devoid of the provisions of Income Tax Law in India and therefore assessment order itself

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

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

144C(13) of the Act was finalized on 16.02.2016 after making following disallowance/additions” ITA Nos.1867/Ahd/2019 & 54/Ahd/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Page 3 of 8 i. Transfer Pricing addition :Rs. 60,83,440/- ii. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) :Rs. 1,68,88,558/- iii. Disallowance u/s 35(2AB) :Rs. 3,82,99,313/- iv. Disallowance u/s

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

144C(13) of the Act was finalized on 16.02.2016 after making following disallowance/additions” ITA Nos.1867/Ahd/2019 & 54/Ahd/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Page 3 of 8 i. Transfer Pricing addition :Rs. 60,83,440/- ii. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) :Rs. 1,68,88,558/- iii. Disallowance u/s 35(2AB) :Rs. 3,82,99,313/- iv. Disallowance u/s

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

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

144C(10) and holding that in view of the long term I.T.A No. 702 & 729/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 5 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT/Dy. CIT vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd capital gains claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38), disallowance u/s. 14A could be made. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that ii was not open

ASHOK KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INT. TAX, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 148 was not raised as part of the objections against the draft assessment order before the Ld. DRP. The Appellant submits that the issue raised in the additional grounds of appeal goes to the core of the jurisdiction of the reassessment proceedings conducted by the Ld. AO. The Appellant relies on the ratio laid down

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

144C of the Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. ITA No.2030/Ahd/2016 and 3 others A.Y. 2011-12 2 First we take ITA No. 2035/Ahd/2016, an appeal by the assessee for the AY 2011-12 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

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

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

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