DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Report. In part-5 of its report Id. TPO referred that "in view of the fact that these replica transactions of Cadbury India Ltd., where ALP is determined of these very transaction. As such the ALP determined by assessee is not being disturbed. Further, we have seen that assessee filed Form 3CEB, Royally Agreements entered into with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Report. In part-5 of its report Id. TPO referred that "in view of the fact that these replica transactions of Cadbury India Ltd., where ALP is determined of these very transaction. As such the ALP determined by assessee is not being disturbed. Further, we have seen that assessee filed Form 3CEB, Royally Agreements entered into with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Report. In part-5 of its report Id. TPO referred that "in view of the fact that these replica transactions of Cadbury India Ltd., where ALP is determined of these very transaction. As such the ALP determined by assessee is not being disturbed. Further, we have seen that assessee filed Form 3CEB, Royally Agreements entered into with

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing\nReport. In part-5 of its report Id. TPO referred that \"in view of\nthe fact that these replica transactions of Cadbury India Ltd.,\nwhere ALP is determined of these very transaction. As such the\nALP determined by assessee is not being disturbed. Further, we\nhave seen that assessee filed Form 3CEB, Royally Agreements\nentered into with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing\nReport. In part-5 of its report Id. TPO referred that \"in view of\nthe fact that these replica transactions of Cadbury India Ltd.,\nwhere ALP is determined of these very transaction. As such the\nALP determined by assessee is not being disturbed. Further, we\nhave seen that assessee filed Form 3CEB, Royally Agreements\nentered into with

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transferred from Jurisdictional A.O. to Central Circle without obtaining the consent of the assessee U/s. 127 of the Act. Therefore, the order of A.O. is without Jurisdiction. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the proceedings of A.O. in re- opening the assessment U/s. 147. Though the assessment is based on incriminating material found during Search at Robin Goenka

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transferred from Jurisdictional A.O. to Central Circle without obtaining the consent of the assessee U/s. 127 of the Act. Therefore, the order of A.O. is without Jurisdiction. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the proceedings of A.O. in re- opening the assessment U/s. 147. Though the assessment is based on incriminating material found during Search at Robin Goenka

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transferred from Jurisdictional A.O. to Central Circle without obtaining the consent of the assessee U/s. 127 of the Act. Therefore, the order of A.O. is without Jurisdiction. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the proceedings of A.O. in re- opening the assessment U/s. 147. Though the assessment is based on incriminating material found during Search at Robin Goenka

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transferred from Jurisdictional A.O. to Central Circle without obtaining the consent of the assessee U/s. 127 of the Act. Therefore, the order of A.O. is without Jurisdiction. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the proceedings of A.O. in re- opening the assessment U/s. 147. Though the assessment is based on incriminating material found during Search at Robin Goenka

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transferred from Jurisdictional A.O. to Central Circle without obtaining the consent of the assessee U/s. 127 of the Act. Therefore, the order of A.O. is without Jurisdiction. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the proceedings of A.O. in re- opening the assessment U/s. 147. Though the assessment is based on incriminating material found during Search at Robin Goenka

M/S. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

price to the land owner in future. The Assessing Officer further observed that while computing the capital gain, the assessee also claimed to have paid Rs.4,11,00,000/- to Kalpesh K. Patel as the confirming party. The assessee was called upon the details vide notice dated 16.03.2016 and the assessee replied vide submissions dated 21.03.2016. The sale deed dated

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has erred in law and on facts in exceeding the jurisdiction by passing the TP Order under Section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) beyond the mandatorily prescribed time limit as per Section 92CA(3A) read with Section 153(4) of the Act, thereby making the TP Order barred by limitation

DR. SHRUTI RAMRAO SHUJOLE, DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD vs. GSG ABODE LLP, NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD

127 of the Act was not issued to the appellant.\"\n3.1. The ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in the case of GSG Abode\nLLP in ITA No.665/Ahd/2024 for AY 2020-21 is reproduced as under:\n\"Whether, in the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A) is correct in deleting

BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127/- and additions made during the year to the tune of Rs.12,10,443/-. What transpires from the fact therefore is that the majority depreciation claimed by the assessee on office equipments at the rate of 15% related to the opening value of the block of asset coming over from past years, when these assets were acquired

HAGGLUNDS DRIVES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( NOW MERGED IN BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127/- and additions made during the year to the tune of Rs.12,10,443/-. What transpires from the fact therefore is that the majority depreciation claimed by the assessee on office equipments at the rate of 15% related to the opening value of the block of asset coming over from past years, when these assets were acquired

SOPHOS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer for determining Arms’ Length Price of the International Transaction undertaken by the assessee company and the TPO accepted the price at which International Transaction were recorded and no adverse inference was drawn by passing order dated 28-10-2019 under section 92CA(3) of the Act. Following the same, the Ld AO accepted the returned income filed

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Pricing and also much lesser than the prevailing interest rates in the market. It is undisputed fact that based on contractual obligation the late payment of 232 days has attracted the penal interest of Rs.50,16,000/- which is to be allowed u/s.37(1) of the Act. Thus the addition made by the Ld AO on this account is against

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Pricing and also much lesser than the prevailing interest rates in the market. It is undisputed fact that based on contractual obligation the late payment of 232 days has attracted the penal interest of Rs.50,16,000/- which is to be allowed u/s.37(1) of the Act. Thus the addition made by the Ld AO on this account is against