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 officer (TPO) for determining arm's length price (ALP) of international transactions Though TPO did not suggest any adjustment in his order, he suggested initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271AA, 271G and 271BA on ground that assessee had not maintained prescribed TP documentation and did not furnish information requisitioned by TPO On basis of recommendation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, 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 officer (TPO) for determining arm's length price (ALP) of international transactions Though TPO did not suggest any adjustment in his order, he suggested initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271AA, 271G and 271BA on ground that assessee had not maintained prescribed TP documentation and did not furnish information requisitioned by TPO On basis of recommendation

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 officer (TPO) for determining arm's length price (ALP) of international transactions Though TPO did not suggest any adjustment in his order, he suggested initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271AA, 271G and 271BA on ground that assessee had not maintained prescribed TP documentation and did not furnish information requisitioned by TPO On basis of recommendation

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)

9. It is also relevant to refer to decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai\nITAT in the case of Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd vide ITA No.\n921/Mum/2014 wherein it is held as under-\n4. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties\nand perused the order of the authorities below There is no\ndispute That

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)

9. It is also relevant to refer to decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai\nITAT in the case of Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd vide ITA No.\n921/Mum/2014 wherein it is held as under-\n\n4. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties\nand perused the order of the authorities below There is no\ndispute That

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) (1) AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

transfer pricing study, and the AO’s reliance on product-level comparability under CPM was erroneous. Accordingly, ground numbers 1 to 4 of the Revenue are dismissed. Ground No.5 of the Revenue relating to addition made in the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule

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

PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

139 of the Act, this fact is treated as the appellant has reported nil income. Meaning thereby, the appellant has misreported her income by concealing taxable income for which Id. AO had rightly initiated penalty proceedings and passed the penalty order. Thus, in view of the facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant

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

139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year on 13.10.2014 declaring total income at Rs. NIL after set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 34,194/- for A.Y. 2014-15. A survey action under Section 133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years

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

139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year on 13.10.2014 declaring total income at Rs. NIL after set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 34,194/- for A.Y. 2014-15. A survey action under Section 133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years

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

139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year on 13.10.2014 declaring total income at Rs. NIL after set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 34,194/- for A.Y. 2014-15. A survey action under Section 133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years

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

139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year on 13.10.2014 declaring total income at Rs. NIL after set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 34,194/- for A.Y. 2014-15. A survey action under Section 133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years

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

139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year on 13.10.2014 declaring total income at Rs. NIL after set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 34,194/- for A.Y. 2014-15. A survey action under Section 133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ATUL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

transfer pricing study report and such other documents as were required together with detail submission to justify the Arm's Length Price computed in respect of the international transactions. Therefore, sufficient accomplice were made with respect to notice uls.92D(3) of the IT Act. The other reasons mentioned by the Ld. TPO are general in nature and did not point

THE UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION ,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

9)" that\n➤ Hon'ble the ITAT has permitted the said assessee to raised\n“additional ground” questioning the “validity of notice u/s 153C of\nthe Act\";\nHon'ble the ITAT, thereafter, quashed the notices u/s 153C of the\nAct for relevant assessment years;\nHon'ble the High Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the\nrevenue against the order

THE MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

9)" that\n➤ Hon'ble the ITAT has permitted the said assessee to raised\n“additional ground” questioning the “validity of notice u/s 153C of\nthe Act\";\nHon'ble the ITAT, thereafter, quashed the notices u/s 153C of the\nAct for relevant assessment years;\nHon'ble the High Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the\nrevenue against the order

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Ku. Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Ku. Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into