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 Order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of Rs.1,54,77,374/- namely [a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to Associate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and [b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution

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 Order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of Rs.1,54,77,374/- namely [a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to Associate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and [b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution

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), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of Rs.1,54,77,374/- namely [a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to Associate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and [b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution

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)

Transfer Pricing Order\nu/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of\nRs.1,54,77,374/- namely\n[a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to\nAssociate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and\n[b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-.\n2. 2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO's order

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)

Transfer Pricing Order\nu/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of\nRs.1,54,77,374/- namely\n\n[a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to\nAssociate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and\n[b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-.\n\n2. 2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge

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 adjustments were made vide order dated 31.05.2022. The assessee filed appeal before us, against the said final assessment order dated 31.05.2022. 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the entire assessment proceedings in the case of Hazira Port Private Limited for Assessment Year 2017–18 are vitiated due to serious legal infirmities in the manner

BOCK COMPRESSORS INDIA PRIVATE,BENGALURU vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Study Report using Resale Price Method (RPM) accordance with Section 920 and Section 920 of the Act read with Rule 10B, 10C and 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the “Rules”) without providing the cogent reason. 3. The ld. AO., Ld. TPO and Ld. DRP erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that goods sold

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:

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

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

156/- by filing return of income and if, the case of the assessee was not reopened under Section 147 of the Act, the assessee would not have reported the escaped amount and then, the said amount would have escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A Parulben Vijakumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year

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

transfer pricing on account of capital account transaction being the acquisition of shares. Merely, there was a delay in the allotment of shares by the AE to the assessee, such delay cannot change the character of the transaction as loan. We note that the Delhi bench of ITAT in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited vs. ACIT reported

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

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

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

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

transferred or received against cheque amount and RTGS received in bank account of various companies is layered within his infrastructure and finally paid in the form of one-time or long term/short term capital gains in accommodation entries. (ix) The decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Chain House International Pvt. Limited, ratio of such

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

transferred or received against cheque amount and RTGS received in bank account of various companies is layered within his infrastructure and finally paid in the form of one-time or long term/short term capital gains in accommodation entries. (ix) The decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Chain House International Pvt. Limited, ratio of such