THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

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

193 ITR 49 (Ker), while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

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

193 ITR 49 (Ker), while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

transferred to goodwill or capital reserves as the case may be. No specific directions have been given by the BIFR that the excess amount paid by the appellant to SCL would amount as goodwill. The A.O has further mentioned that the surplus arising from amalgamation is more akin to share premium and hence should be treated as ‘capital reserve

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

transferred to goodwill or capital reserves as the case may be. No specific directions have been given by the BIFR that the excess amount paid by the appellant to SCL would amount as goodwill. The A.O has further mentioned that the surplus arising from amalgamation is more akin to share premium and hence should be treated as ‘capital reserve

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

transferred to goodwill or capital reserves as the case may be. No specific directions have been given by the BIFR that the excess amount paid by the appellant to SCL would amount as goodwill. The A.O has further mentioned that the surplus arising from amalgamation is more akin to share premium and hence should be treated as ‘capital reserve

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

transferred to goodwill or capital reserves as the case may be. No specific directions have been given by the BIFR that the excess amount paid by the appellant to SCL would amount as goodwill. The A.O has further mentioned that the surplus arising from amalgamation is more akin to share premium and hence should be treated as ‘capital reserve

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-\n13 & 2013-14 filed by the assessee are partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee\nfor AY 2014-15 is allowed

transferred to goodwill or\ncapital reserves as the case may be. No specific directions have been given by the\nBIFR that the excess amount paid by the appellant to SCL would amount as\ngoodwill. The A.O has further mentioned that the surplus arising from\namalgamation is more akin to share premium and hence should be treated as\n'capital reserve

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

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

transferred to R.H.S. Family account No.681 in the same branch. An amount of Rs. 23,444/-was found to have been withdrawn in cash, the whereabouts of which were not known. iv) This information was elicited from the appellant himself in the shape of statement recorded on 24/4/1993 by the ITO, Ward -8(8), Ahmedabad which has been reproduced

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

transferred to R.H.S. Family account No.681 in the same branch. An amount of Rs. 23,444/-was found to have been withdrawn in cash, the whereabouts of which were not known. iv) This information was elicited from the appellant himself in the shape of statement recorded on 24/4/1993 by the ITO, Ward -8(8), Ahmedabad which has been reproduced

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

price (ALP) of the international transaction as Nil. 7.1 The Ld. AO/TPO endorsed that the PSC is a self-serving document but erred in not allowing the expenses which were restricted in PSC to 1% of the total contract cost on the ground that cost benefit analysis was not done. It is submitted that prescribing 1% of contract cost

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

price (ALP) of the international transaction as Nil. 7.1 The Ld. AO/TPO endorsed that the PSC is a self-serving document but erred in not allowing the expenses which were restricted in PSC to 1% of the total contract cost on the ground that cost benefit analysis was not done. It is submitted that prescribing 1% of contract cost

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

price (ALP) of the international transaction as Nil. 7.1 The Ld. AO/TPO endorsed that the PSC is a self-serving document but erred in not allowing the expenses which were restricted in PSC to 1% of the total contract cost on the ground that cost benefit analysis was not done. It is submitted that prescribing 1% of contract cost

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

transferred to Aculife\nHealthcare Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 01.10.2014.\n3. For the Assessment Year 2015–16, the assessee filed its\noriginal return of income on 28.11.2015 declaring total income at\nNil and book profit u/s 115JB at Rs.2,46,69,60,565/-. A revised\nreturn was filed on 23.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.\n46,72,792/-. The case

THE ACTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

transferred to Aculife\nHealthcare Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 01.10.2014.\n3. For the Assessment Year 2015–16, the assessee filed its\noriginal return of income on 28.11.2015 declaring total income at\nNil and book profit u/s 115JB at Rs.2,46,69,60,565/-. A revised\nITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others\nNirma Limited Vs. DCIT\n Assessment Years

THE ACTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

transferred to Aculife\nHealthcare Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 01.10.2014.\n3. For the Assessment Year 2015–16, the assessee filed its\noriginal return of income on 28.11.2015 declaring total income at\nNil and book profit u/s 115JB at Rs.2,46,69,60,565/-. A revised\nITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others\nNirma Limited Vs. DCIT\n Assessment Years

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

transferred to Aculife\nHealthcare Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 01.10.2014.\n3. For the Assessment Year 2015–16, the assessee filed its\noriginal return of income on 28.11.2015 declaring total income at\nNil and book profit u/s 115JB at Rs.2,46,69,60,565/-. A revised\nITA Nos.1412-1413/Ahd/2019 with others\nNirma Limited Vs. DCIT\n Assessment Years

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

193-196 of the P/b In this connection, it is most respectfully submitted that both the authorities have failed to understand the agreement the true sense - Clause 3 reading of clause 3 of the development agreement at page number 45, it can be seen that all the direct or incidental were required to be arranged by the appellant - Clause