AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

section 68/ 56(2) of the Act, then it will be subject to tax in the hands of ABC Ltd. Thus the value of share price along with premium at the most can be brought to tax in the hands of the ABC Ltd if it fails to justify the same. Now Mr. X

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 68/ 56(2) of the Act, then it will be subject to tax in the hands of ABC Ltd. Thus the value of share price along with premium at the most can be brought to tax in the hands of the ABC Ltd if it fails to justify the same. Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

56. Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT-A the Revenue is in appeal before us. 57. Both the Learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the respective authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 24 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

56. Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT-A the Revenue is in appeal before us. 57. Both the Learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the respective authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 24 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

56. Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT-A the Revenue is in appeal before us. 57. Both the Learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the respective authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 24 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

M/S. VANITY CERACHEM PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

x 92) at the rate of share premium of Rs.92/- each for issue of 263000 equity shares. The assessee furnished share certificate and working for valuation of shares along with certificate. At the time of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee furnished copy of certificate of the assessee company bearing no date showing the fair market value

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,27,829.00 2,96,79,945.57 SURENDRANAGAR 16 PIPE LINE PIPE LINE WORK RIYADHAR RMC 12,80,74,034.00 33,91,209.74 17 ROAD PATAN SIHORI UNIHA ROAD 1,64,30,319.00 89,386.20 WORK 18 ROAD SURENDRANAGAR - VIRAMGAM 94,38,106.00 5,29,730.45 ROAD WORK 19 BUILDING EWS QUATTER WORK AUDA

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

X of the Act. 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below, and duly examined the material available on record. 14. The issue relates to the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO and confirmed by the CIT(A) by imputing notional interest on receivables outstanding from AEs beyond a credit period

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

X of the Act. 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below, and duly examined the material available on record. 14. The issue relates to the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO and confirmed by the CIT(A) by imputing notional interest on receivables outstanding from AEs beyond a credit period

AQUALFIL POLYMERS CO. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 25. Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the issue stood covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of GSRTC Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). I.T.A No. 542 & 448/Ahd/2018 & Ors. A.Y. 2013-14 & 14-15 Page No 13 Aquafil

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. AQUAFIL POLYMERS CO. PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 25. Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the issue stood covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of GSRTC Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). I.T.A No. 542 & 448/Ahd/2018 & Ors. A.Y. 2013-14 & 14-15 Page No 13 Aquafil