DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

transfer pricing addition of Rs.9,95,440/- towards corporate guarantee provided to AE on which no guarantee fee was charged, without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned by the AO in the assessment order, and by the TPO in his order.” 8. The learned AR for the assesse before us file paper book running from pages

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

transfer pricing addition of Rs.9,95,440/- towards corporate guarantee provided to AE on which no guarantee fee was charged, without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned by the AO in the assessment order, and by the TPO in his order.” 8. The learned AR for the assesse before us file paper book running from pages

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

transfer pricing legislation does not support the plea of the assessee. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any specific legal provision enabling such a corresponding deduction or demonstrate, or even remotely suggest, the line of demarcation as visualized by the learned counsel. As regards the reference to second proviso to Section 92C(4) made by the learned

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

transfer pricing legislation does not support the plea of the assessee. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any specific legal provision enabling such a corresponding deduction or demonstrate, or even remotely suggest, the line of demarcation as visualized by the learned counsel. As regards the reference to second proviso to Section 92C(4) made by the learned

SMT. RESHMIBEN P. KANUGO,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), VADODARA

In the result appeal filed the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2131/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Smt. Reshmiben P. Income Tax Kanugo, Officer, 26, Jawahar Society, Nr. Ward 3(1)(3), Bakrawadi, R.V. Desai Vadodara. Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390001. Pan: Azupk6721B 2. 2132/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Shri Alpesh P. Income Tax Kanugo(Huf), Officer, 26, Jawahar Society, Ward 3(1)(3), Nr. Bakrawadi, Ahmedabad. R.V. Desai Road, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Aajha5173P 3. 2133/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Shri Parasmal B. Kanugo Income Tax Officer, (Huf), Ward-3(1)(3), 26, Jawahar Society, Nr. Ahmedabad. Bakrawadi, R.V. Desai Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390001. Pan: Aakhp0126Q

price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject mailer of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal

SMT. MEERA ALPESH KANUGO,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

price list itself I.T.A No. 2130/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 16 Smt. Meera Alpesh Kanugo vs. ITO could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject mailer of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point

SHRI JANI PARASMAL VAGHMAL (HUF),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1354/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Jain Parasmal Vaghmal(Huf), I.T.O., 27, Vijay Society, Vs. Ward-3(1)(5), New Khanderao Road, Vadodara. Baroda.

price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject mailer of the cross-examination and make the remarks as Asstt. Year 2010-11 9 mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before

SHANTABEN PARASMAL JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject mailer of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Pricing and also much lesser than the prevailing interest rates in the market. It is undisputed fact that based on contractual obligation the late payment of 232 days has attracted the penal interest of Rs.50,16,000/- which is to be allowed u/s.37(1) of the Act. Thus the addition made by the Ld AO on this account is against

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Pricing and also much lesser than the prevailing interest rates in the market. It is undisputed fact that based on contractual obligation the late payment of 232 days has attracted the penal interest of Rs.50,16,000/- which is to be allowed u/s.37(1) of the Act. Thus the addition made by the Ld AO on this account is against