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

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

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

M/S. PUSHKAR CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

price of Rs.3,50,00,000. Thus, the unaccounted cash payment of Rs.11,17,57,500 is made to M/s.Pushkar Corporation by M/s. Kunjan Corporation. 5. Based on the above, the AO was of the view that there was the involvement of element of cash amounting to ₹ 22.80 crores in the impugned Sale Transaction of Land made by the assessee

M/S. PUSHKAR CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

price of Rs.3,50,00,000. Thus, the unaccounted cash payment of Rs.11,17,57,500 is made to M/s.Pushkar Corporation by M/s. Kunjan Corporation. 5. Based on the above, the AO was of the view that there was the involvement of element of cash amounting to ₹ 22.80 crores in the impugned Sale Transaction of Land made by the assessee

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 153C of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 Accordingly, the assessment proceedings in the\ncase of the assessce for the AY 2007-08 to A.Y 2013 14 are hereby\ninitiated u/s 153C of the Act and notices are being issued.”\n17.6 Clearly the satisfaction note records only the documents found\nand seized during search on Sarang Chemicals Ltd. which related

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 153C of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 Accordingly, the assessment proceedings in the\ncase of the assessce for the AY 2007-08 to A.Y 2013 14 are hereby\ninitiated u/s 153C of the Act and notices are being issued.”\n17.6 Clearly the satisfaction note records only the documents found\nand seized during search on Sarang Chemicals Ltd. which related

MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 153C of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 Accordingly, the assessment proceedings in the\ncase of the assessce for the AY 2007-08 to A.Y 2013 14 are hereby\ninitiated u/s 153C of the Act and notices are being issued.”\n17.6 Clearly the satisfaction note records only the documents found\nand seized during search on Sarang Chemicals Ltd. which related

MEHAAN ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

153C was completed on 30.03.2023 determining total income at Rs. 34,73,72,255/- after making additions including the following:- i) Rs. 2,81,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, ii) Rs. 29,59,28,985/- on account of unexplained members’ contribution. The assessee had also claimed interest expenditure of Rs. 63,45,390/- on such unsecured

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)

Section 153C r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 392/Ahd/2023 [Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. That the learned Transfer Pricing

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

section 153C of the Act by the Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched\nperson and the assessment was carried out u/s 153C of the Act in the case of\nthe assessee for AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21. The incriminating material included\nand unregistered and un-notarized M.O.U. dated 21/01/2018 which was\nfound in digital from the I-phone

TALENT ANYWHERE SERVICES PVT. LTD. ( SUCCESSOR TO QSG RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD. ),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

transfer pricing mechanism. Such opportunity cannot be taken away by treating it as purely procedural in nature. 6. These observations are read time and again with a view to highlight the contention that the right of the assessee to approach the DRP cannot be declined by not giving a draft order, whether in the first round of proceedings and equally

GANESH PLANTATIONS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

transfer of amount through banking channel by Venus Group concern to assessee confirms the transaction in exchange of corresponding cash payment by the assessee. Based on such factual analysis, the AO invoked provisions of Section 68 of the Act and held that credit of Rs.4 Crore received by the assessee through banking channel during F.Y. 2010-11 from M/s. Sunderdeep

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH PLANTATIONS LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

transfer of amount through banking channel by Venus Group concern to assessee confirms the transaction in exchange of corresponding cash payment by the assessee. Based on such factual analysis, the AO invoked provisions of Section 68 of the Act and held that credit of Rs.4 Crore received by the assessee through banking channel during F.Y. 2010-11 from M/s. Sunderdeep

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted