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

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

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.2,10,44,148 in para 6.15 of the order (page 124) without appreciating that out of total disallowance of Rs. 850.93 lacs (para 6.13, page 109), on considering relief of ITA Nos. 1334 to 1336/Ahd/2017 & ITA Nos. 1644 to 1646/Ahd/2017 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.2,10,44,148 in para 6.15 of the order (page 124) without appreciating that out of total disallowance of Rs. 850.93 lacs (para 6.13, page 109), on considering relief of ITA Nos. 1334 to 1336/Ahd/2017 & ITA Nos. 1644 to 1646/Ahd/2017 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.2,10,44,148 in para 6.15 of the order (page 124) without appreciating that out of total disallowance of Rs. 850.93 lacs (para 6.13, page 109), on considering relief of ITA Nos. 1334 to 1336/Ahd/2017 & ITA Nos. 1644 to 1646/Ahd/2017 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.2,10,44,148 in para 6.15 of the order (page 124) without appreciating that out of total disallowance of Rs. 850.93 lacs (para 6.13, page 109), on considering relief of ITA Nos. 1334 to 1336/Ahd/2017 & ITA Nos. 1644 to 1646/Ahd/2017 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.2,10,44,148 in para 6.15 of the order (page 124) without appreciating that out of total disallowance of Rs. 850.93 lacs (para 6.13, page 109), on considering relief of ITA Nos. 1334 to 1336/Ahd/2017 & ITA Nos. 1644 to 1646/Ahd/2017 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.2,10,44,148 in para 6.15 of the order (page 124) without appreciating that out of total disallowance of Rs. 850.93 lacs (para 6.13, page 109), on considering relief of ITA Nos. 1334 to 1336/Ahd/2017 & ITA Nos. 1644 to 1646/Ahd/2017 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE RECYCLING LLP, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

sections 153A and 148 of the Act. were DCIT vs. Priya Blue Recycling LLP Asst.Year –2018-19 - 2– issued, and the assessment was carried out by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT). During the assessment proceedings, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing

THAKORBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3(1)(1), VADODARA

148 of\nthe Act was upheld and the Assessing Officer was permitted to complete the\nreassessment after taking into account the evidence that may be brought on\nrecord by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has followed the said binding decision\nwhile rejecting the legal challenge to the reopening.\n11. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the assessee

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

148 of the Act for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act as well as passing the order u/s. 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. Maunang Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (Now ACIT) Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that reopening of the case

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

2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

148,802,192 Less: Loans 62,376,684 Deferred tax Liabilities 19,283,770 81,660,454 ----------------------------------- 67,141,738 Less: Transfer of general reserve in books of Amalgamated company to general reserves of the company. 34,034,810 Transfer of investment allowance reserve in books of Amalgamated company to investment allowance reserve of the company 301,000 Transfer

BUNDY INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was made for determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of these international transaction. The international services were in respect of manufacturing segment, management support services and IT enabled support services (ITES). The TPO vide order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act dated 21.10.2010 proposed a total TP adjustment of Rs.6,29,55,148/- as under

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

2 per cent. We observe that in the instant facts, the assessee has computed the ALP at LIBOR plus 2.5%. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer on the Ground that the assessee has not given the comparable basis for arriving at the aforesaid rate. However, in our view, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

BHAVNA SHETALKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

transfer. In these circumstances, the plea raised in the additional\nground is contrary to the record, devoid of merit, and does not give rise\nto any triable issue. The additional ground is accordingly not admitted.\n13.\nThe AR assailed the validity of the reassessment proceedings\ninitiated for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on several grounds. It was\nsubmitted that

M/S. ATUL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

transfer pricing adjustment made to the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AE in terms of provisions of section 92CA of the Act. The said grounds read as under: “1. Ld. AO/ TPO/ DRP erred in law and on facts in determining upward adjustment of Rs. 1, 60, 31, 0507- in respect of international transaction without