THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE RECYCLING LLP, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that if it had failed to maintain the necessary documents for determining the arm's length DCIT vs. Priya Blue Recycling LLP Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– price as required under section 92D, the TPO should have made adjustments to the transfer pricing, computation which was not done in this case

PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide order dated 03.10.2017 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. In the meanwhile, search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on Priya Blue Group on 19.11.2019 in which the premises of the assessee M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. were also covered. Considering the said fact, notice under

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

price of the residential bungalow is Rs.21.50lacs as against which Rs.30.50lacs has been recovered from the client. The difference of Rs.9,00,000/- is the unaccounted receipt members each bungalow. Since there are 40 bungalows in the aforesaid scheme there is an undisclosed income of to the extent of Rs.3.60 lacs. The AO has also placed reliance on the statement

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. MYTRAH VAYU (GUJARAT) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing as per provisions of Section 92BA r.w.s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. However, he stated that out of abundant caution, the assessee had reported the transaction in Form 3CEB. It was also contended that the assessee was eligible for claiming benefit of deduction of profits under 80IA of the Act though it had not claimed any benefit

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.60,83,440/- pertaining to corporate guarantee fee; as made by the TPO and affirmed in dispute resolution penal; "DRP"s directions. The said lower authorities hold that the assessee ought to have charged @1.24% on corporate guarantee amount of Rs.49,06,00,000/-. The assessee admittedly had provided the corporate guarantee in question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.60,83,440/- pertaining to corporate guarantee fee; as made by the TPO and affirmed in dispute resolution penal; "DRP"s directions. The said lower authorities hold that the assessee ought to have charged @1.24% on corporate guarantee amount of Rs.49,06,00,000/-. The assessee admittedly had provided the corporate guarantee in question

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

40A(3) of the Act, on account of expenses being incurred in cash beyond the limit specified. And having not examined the issue, the assessment order passed was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. iii. The grants received by the assessee during the year amounting in all to Rs.1.49 Crores, which were noted

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST