MILACRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Milacron India Pvt.Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Plot No.93/2 & 91/4 Vs Ahmedabad. Phase-1,Gidc Vatva, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabcc 0881 D

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2021–22, pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (“the DRP”), Mumbai, issued under section 144C(5) of the Act vide order dated 02.09.2024. 2 Facts of the case: 2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the manufacturing

HAZIRA PORT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CICLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the above terms

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, wherein certain additions were proposed. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order under Section144C of the Act on 22.07.2021. The assessee objected to the additions made by the Assessing Officer before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), vide email dated 20.08.2021. Since, the DRP offices closed early

D S TRADING,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:- “1. Ground No 1 - Upward transfer pricing

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee reads as under:- “1. Disallowance in respect of annual technical fees (Tax effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The learned DRP has erred in upholding addition made by AO in respect

A MENARINI INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A No. 877/Ahd/2024 A.Y.2018-19 Page No 2 A Menarini India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT 2. Today is the 14th time of hearing of this appeal, None appeared on behalf of the assessee, no authorization is given to any Representative. Repeated

LESSO BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21. I.T.A No. 1698/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No 2 Lesso Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual filed his original Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2018-19 on 17-07-2018 I.T.A No. 1140/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 2 Jignasa Atulkumar

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

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

144B of the Income Tax on 29-05-2021 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and none of the conditions as envisaged under Section 263 are fulfilled. 2. Ground No. 2 Issue of claim of deduction under Section 32AC of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue: The Ld. PCIT

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.264/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Acit Adani Enterprises Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-1 (1)(1) Adani Corporate House V/S. Ahmedabad Shantigram Near Vaishno Devi Circle S.G. Highway Khodiyar Ahmedabad- 382 421 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 2804 L अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

144B of the Act. The ACIT vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd. Asst. Year : 2018-19 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Adani Enterprises Ltd., engaged in the business of trading various commodities, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year, declaring an income of Rs.23,43,45,310/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

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

OVEZ ARIFBHAI LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

144B on 30th March, 2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue , and the said reassessment order was set aside by the ld. PCIT vide revisionary order dated 12.03.2024 passed by ld. PCIT u/s 263, and the Assessing Officer was directed to verify the demat account and pass fresh assessment after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

DILIPKUMAR BABABHAI ZAVERI,PATAN, GUJARAT vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer,\nas the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests\nof the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being\nheard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems\nnecessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case\njustify

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

144B(xvi)(b) of the Act. The AO, therefore, proceeded to complete the reassessment ex parte and passed the order dated 23.05.2023 determining total income at Rs.4,28,64,954/-, comprising the following additions: i. Addition of Rs.2,91,23,300/- under section 69 of the Act, being unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property; and ii. Addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, PANJARAPOLE, AHMEDABAD vs. VIKASH MORE, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 thereby making addition of Rs.1,47,12,954/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act which was claimed by the assessee on sale of shares of M/s. Kushal Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.1,68,98,212/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act towards

SHRI DILIP MANIBHAI PRAJAPATI,DHOLKA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Dilip Manibhai Prajapati Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(1) 1, Shitalnath Society Ahmedabad. Opp: Aath Gam Patel Wadi, Saroda Road Kalikund Dhoka 382 225 Pan : Acspp 9801 C

price for which it was purchased being Rs.2,01,00,000/-. He contended that since this matter had already been considered by the DVO in the case of third co- purchaser of the property, finding no material difference in the actual consideration for which the property was purchased, and its fair market value, the authorities below had erred in considering

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price fixed by Govt. under Sugar (Control) order which was nothing but distribution of profit resulting in escapement of income, was without jurisdiction. In the case of Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahkari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 69 taxmann.com 245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price fixed by Govt. under Sugar (Control) order which was nothing but distribution of profit resulting in escapement of income, was without jurisdiction. In the case of Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahkari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 69 taxmann.com 245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price fixed by Govt. under Sugar (Control) order which was nothing but distribution of profit resulting in escapement of income, was without jurisdiction. In the case of Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahkari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 69 taxmann.com 245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price fixed by Govt. under Sugar (Control) order which was nothing but distribution of profit resulting in escapement of income, was without jurisdiction. In the case of Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahkari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 69 taxmann.com 245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee