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

price as mentioned in the seized documents. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction

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

price as mentioned in the seized documents. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction

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

price as mentioned in the seized documents. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction

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

price as mentioned in the seized documents. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction

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

151 of the Act, and in our\nconsidered view, the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) does not merit\nreconsideration. The case laws challenging the reopening of assessment\nunder section 147 of the Act are applicable to the particular set of an\nassessee's case and in our considered view, looking into the facts of the\nassessee's case, the background

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ABHILASHA PHARMA PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2015-16 Abhilasha Pharma Pvt Ltd., The Dcit, Vs 11, Chaudhari Co-Op. Circle 1(1)(1), Housing Society Ltd., Ahmedabad Paldigam, Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007 Pan : Aafca 5539 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Sumar Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per T.R. Senthil Kumar:

2) any transfer of goods or services referred to in section 80- 1A(8): (3) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in section 80-1A(10); (4) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or section 10AA, to which section 80-1A(8) or section

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

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

MAYUR DYECHEM INTERMEDIATES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

151 taxmann.com 358 (Amritsar - Trib.)/[2023] 106 ITR(T) 550 (Amritsar - Trib.)/[2023] 202 ITD 189 (Amritsar - Mayur Dyechem Intermediates LLP vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 5– Trib.)[13-06-2023], in which the Tribunal held that income earned from sale of RECs/ESCs (carbon credits) is a “capital receipt” and not business income since carbon credit is an offshoot from

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

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

transfer pricing assessment for the above asst. years, thus there is no dispute by TPO in respect of the royalty income. However, the assessee company failed to claim the Foreign Tax Credit [herein after referred as FTC] under section 90 of the Act while filing the Return of Income as the Tax With-holding Certificates [TWC] were received

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

transfer pricing assessment for the above asst. years, thus there is no dispute by TPO in respect of the royalty income. However, the assessee company failed to claim the Foreign Tax Credit [herein after referred as FTC] under section 90 of the Act while filing the Return of Income as the Tax With-holding Certificates [TWC] were received

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

Transfer Pricing Officer’s order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31.07.2021. During the assessment, the assessee objected to the use of the "General purpose/refinance" filter, arguing that the "primary purpose" of the loan should be considered. The Assessing Officer observed that finding an exact comparable is difficult and thus used similar comparable. The Assessing Officer justified using

ARVIND LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

Transfer Pricing Officer’s order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31.07.2021. During the assessment, the assessee objected to the use of the "General purpose/refinance" filter, arguing that the "primary purpose" of the loan should be considered. The Assessing Officer observed that finding an exact comparable is difficult and thus used similar comparable. The Assessing Officer justified using

GALAXY DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-7(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

transferred on change of jurisdiction, and further notices under section 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued from time to time, calling for various details including explanation for valuation of land purchases and justification for not disclosing any income under the head “Income from House Property” in respect of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade.\nDuring the course

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

151 taxmann.com 20 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the Ahmedabad ITAT held that where Assessing Officer reopened assessment of assessee based on a prima facie belief that assessee had raised bogus bills to evade taxes and no actual work was done by sub-contractors as claimed by assessee, since AO was not required to establish escapement of income while recording reasons for reopening

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

151 taxmann.com 20 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the Ahmedabad ITAT held that where Assessing Officer reopened assessment of assessee based on a prima facie belief that assessee had raised bogus bills to evade taxes and no actual work was done by sub-contractors as claimed by assessee, since AO was not required to establish escapement of income while recording reasons for reopening

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

151 taxmann.com 20 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the Ahmedabad ITAT held that where Assessing Officer reopened assessment of assessee based on a prima facie belief that assessee had raised bogus bills to evade taxes and no actual work was done by sub-contractors as claimed by assessee, since AO was not required to establish escapement of income while recording reasons for reopening