ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

transfer price for multi-national enterprises and tax administration in the case of CUP method including the situation where adjustments need to be made to uncontrolled transactions to make them comparable uncontrolled transaction. The assessee has not filed the details of functional analysis of these enterprises taking into account assets used and risk assumed. Similarly, the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore

ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH (INDIA) LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) LLP),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing adjustments. 11. Ground Number 10: Deduction u/s 10AA of the Act 12. With respect to this ground of appeal, it is seen that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer computed the total income at a figure of Rs. 74,09,66,910/- (at Page 13 of the Assessment Order), however, in the computation sheet prepared

THE MADHAVPURA MERCANTILE CO. OP. BANK LIMITED (UNDER LIQUIDATION),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

rectification order u/s 154 is passed by ACIT Circle 1(1)(1), without holding valid jurisdiction of case, when in the case of appellant scrutiny notice u/s ITA No. 2241 & 2242/Ahd/2025 The Madhavpura Mercantile Co. Op. bank Limited (Under Liquidation) Vs. ACIT, AY- 2016-17 & 2017-18 4 143(2) was issued by ITO Ward 1(2)(4) and assessment

THE MADHAVPURA MERCANTILE CO. OP. BANK LIMITED (UNDER LIQUIDATION),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

rectification order u/s 154 is passed by ACIT Circle 1(1)(1), without holding valid jurisdiction of case, when in the case of appellant scrutiny notice u/s ITA No. 2241 & 2242/Ahd/2025 The Madhavpura Mercantile Co. Op. bank Limited (Under Liquidation) Vs. ACIT, AY- 2016-17 & 2017-18 4 143(2) was issued by ITO Ward 1(2)(4) and assessment

JOHNSON CONTROLS-HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING INDIA LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1494/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-09 वष"

rectification order passed by the AO under section 154 of the Act vide order dated 14th February 2017 being barred by time. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case filed its return of income dated 27th September 2008 declaring total income under normal computation of income at Rs. 17,24,92,018/- after claiming

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

154 ITD 745/59 taxmann.com 152 (Ahd.), as follows: '5.. ...... The question, however, arises as to what are the connotations of expression 'quasi capital’ in the context of the transfer pricing legislation. 6. Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Ltd. v. ACIT [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi)l, has begun by quoting the thought

BOCK COMPRESSORS INDIA PRIVATE,BENGALURU vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Study Report using Resale Price Method (RPM) accordance with Section 920 and Section 920 of the Act read with Rule 10B, 10C and 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the “Rules”) without providing the cogent reason. 3. The ld. AO., Ld. TPO and Ld. DRP erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that goods sold

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

pricing under section 92 of the Act. 18.15. It is also important to note that the assessee has shown rental income received from UTL which has been duly accepted by the Revenue as income of the assessee. Thus we note that the revenue has taken contradictory stand while holding the transaction between the assessee, UTL & sun BVI as colorable device

JITENDRA K SEWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result ground number 3

transfer u/s.50©of IT Act 1961 subject to rectification u/s. 154 on receipt of valuation report from Govt. Authorized valuation officer, Lr Assistant V.O. prepared final order u/s.50© it Act I.T.A No. 2252/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 5 Jitendra K. Sewani vs. ITO issued two reports dated 27/09/2016 and 27/09/2016 for three properties. Comparative chart indicating consideration assed

KHS MACHINERY PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT. RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2005-06 Khs Machinery P.Ltd. Vs. Acit, Range-4 53, Madhuban Ahmedabad. Nr. Madalpur Underbridge Ahmedabad 380 006. Pan : Aabck 2513 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar With Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-Xxi, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 18.3.2014 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2005-06. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

154 applications for rectification of amount. The addition made be deleted. 3. Ground no.2 relates to disallowance of claim of repairs & maintenance expenses amounting to Rs.1,81,420/-. 4. Taking us through the facts of the case, ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that this issue has been dealt with by the Assessing Officer (AO) at page no.6 para

MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

transfer (Stamp duty, brokerage, legal\nexpenses, etc.)\nNet capital gain before exemption\nLess: Deduction under Section 54B (Investment in\nagricultural land)\nLess: Deduction under Section 54F (Investment in\nresidential house)\nTotal deductions claimed under Sections 54B and 54F\n(rounded off)\nFinal long-term capital gain (as per assessee's revised\ncomputation

SHRI AMBALAL SOMABHAI (KUMBHAR) PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 315/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ambalal Somabhai (Kumbhar) Prajapati Ito, Ward-7(1)(2) 1, Devi Annapurna Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Gurudwara, B/H. West & Park Thaltej, Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380058. Pan : Abgpk 5078 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr

154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A). 8. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. As far as first fold of grievance is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) has taken into consideration the report obtained by the AO in the case of other

MAUNANG FARMS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),(NOW ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 154 of the Act vide letter dated 09.01.2020 before the AO, however, the appellant company had not received any rectification order till date. (v) In the rectification application u/s.154 of the Act dated 09.01.2020, the appellant had contended that according to various judicial pronouncements by various courts if the difference between valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

u/s 194C. In this circular, the CBDT, after considering the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v CIT, 201 ITR 435, laid down certain guidelines with regard to the applicability of the provisions of section 194C. Inter-alia, it provided as follows: "(vi) The provisions of this section will not cover contracts

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

u/s 194C. In this circular, the CBDT, after considering the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v CIT, 201 ITR 435, laid down certain guidelines with regard to the applicability of the provisions of section 194C. Inter-alia, it provided as follows: "(vi) The provisions of this section will not cover contracts

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

u/s 194C. In this circular, the CBDT, after considering the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v CIT, 201 ITR 435, laid down certain guidelines with regard to the applicability of the provisions of section 194C. Inter-alia, it provided as follows: "(vi) The provisions of this section will not cover contracts

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

u/s 194C. In this circular, the CBDT, after considering the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v CIT, 201 ITR 435, laid down certain guidelines with regard to the applicability of the provisions of section 194C. Inter-alia, it provided as follows: "(vi) The provisions of this section will not cover contracts

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

u/s 194C. In this circular, the CBDT, after considering the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v CIT, 201 ITR 435, laid down certain guidelines with regard to the applicability of the provisions of section 194C. Inter-alia, it provided as follows: "(vi) The provisions of this section will not cover contracts