THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHELL ENERGY INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. HAZIRA LNG. PVT. LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Office No.2008, Westgage Vs Ahmedabad. Block-D, Makarba, Sg Highway Ahmedabad 380051. Pan : Aaach 9143 C Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs (Formerly Known As M/S.Hqzira Lng P.Ltd.) Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaach 9143 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate, Shri Vishal Kalra & Ss Tomar, Ars. Revenue By : Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathese Are Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 23.09.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita No.435 & 558/Ahd/2022

TDS credit as per law. 20. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms ITANo.558/Ahd/2022 (Department’s appeal) 21. The ground raised are as under: ITA No.435 and 558/Ahd/2022 22. This ground relates to the TP addition made by the AO/TPO amounting to Rs.25,22,59,720/- on account of purchase of LNG from

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

TDS on salary. Accordingly, AO held that even otherwise it is disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

TDS on salary. Accordingly, AO held that even otherwise it is disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDIT.CIT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TP adjustment to the total income of the Appellant. 6. That the learned AO / TPO / DRP has erred in law and on facts in making an adjustment for the part services provided by Group CEO, CFO, Global Financial Controller and Risk Management by concluding that the intra-group services i.e. GHO Services and RHO Services availed by the Appellant

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)

TDS and TCS of Rs 9,02,68,127/- in the tax computation even though duly granted under an intimation processed u/s 143(1) by the CPC. 12. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in not allowing credit for relief claimed u/s 90 of Rs. 37,46,819/-. 13. That the learned Assessing Officer erred

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

TP assessment. In view of same, during assessment proceedings vide submission dated 16 March 2015, the said agreement was submitted before the Assessing Officer (“AO”). The AO was further requested that the Appellant be given an opportunity to represent its case before the Learned TPO for reconsideration in the light of the said agreement and the Appellant would strive

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

TP assessment. In view of same, during assessment proceedings vide submission dated 16 March 2015, the said agreement was submitted before the Assessing Officer (“AO”). The AO was further requested that the Appellant be given an opportunity to represent its case before the Learned TPO for reconsideration in the light of the said agreement and the Appellant would strive

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TP study report wherein it has determined ALP by using Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM” for short). However, the ld.TPO was not satisfied with methodology adopted by the assessee and he recorded a finding that the assessee sold various chemicals, active pharmaceutical ingredients to its subsidiaries in US and UK, whereas it has sold similar products to other parties

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TP study report wherein it has determined ALP by using Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM” for short). However, the ld.TPO was not satisfied with methodology adopted by the assessee and he recorded a finding that the assessee sold various chemicals, active pharmaceutical ingredients to its subsidiaries in US and UK, whereas it has sold similar products to other parties

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TP study report wherein it has determined ALP by using Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM” for short). However, the ld.TPO was not satisfied with methodology adopted by the assessee and he recorded a finding that the assessee sold various chemicals, active pharmaceutical ingredients to its subsidiaries in US and UK, whereas it has sold similar products to other parties

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TP study report wherein it has determined ALP by using Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM” for short). However, the ld.TPO was not satisfied with methodology adopted by the assessee and he recorded a finding that the assessee sold various chemicals, active pharmaceutical ingredients to its subsidiaries in US and UK, whereas it has sold similar products to other parties

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TP study report wherein it has determined ALP by using Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM” for short). However, the ld.TPO was not satisfied with methodology adopted by the assessee and he recorded a finding that the assessee sold various chemicals, active pharmaceutical ingredients to its subsidiaries in US and UK, whereas it has sold similar products to other parties

SHAMA AJAY PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

method set out by Ld. CIT himself is not correct on the facts and law and the same be held now. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act, both on facts and on law, without appreciating the detailed submission filed before the Ld. A.O. as well

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 4,, BARODA vs. TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result, ITA No.1312/Ahd/2012 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

method. This has not been disputed by the parties before us. The next step which was required by the TPO to identify comparables from the TP study report or from his independent investigation. He has to finalise the filters required to be applied on the results of the comparables selected by him in order to zero down the most comparable

PENTAIR VALVES & CONTROLS INDIA PVT. LTD.( FORMERLY KNOWN AS TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS INDIA PVT. LTD.),BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 4,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.1312/Ahd/2012 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

method. This has not been disputed by the parties before us. The next step which was required by the TPO to identify comparables from the TP study report or from his independent investigation. He has to finalise the filters required to be applied on the results of the comparables selected by him in order to zero down the most comparable

TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- 4,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.1312/Ahd/2012 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

method. This has not been disputed by the parties before us. The next step which was required by the TPO to identify comparables from the TP study report or from his independent investigation. He has to finalise the filters required to be applied on the results of the comparables selected by him in order to zero down the most comparable

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

methods laid down in the Act and the judicial precedents rendered on this issue. The Ld. TPO is directed to consider the same in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 32. He, therefore, contended that in the impugned order also identical direction be given to the TPO. The ld.DR fairly agreed

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

methods laid down in the Act and the judicial precedents rendered on this issue. The Ld. TPO is directed to consider the same in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 32. He, therefore, contended that in the impugned order also identical direction be given to the TPO. The ld.DR fairly agreed

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

TP documentation, Further, in disregarding the CBDT Notification No. 83/2015 dated 19 October, 2015, allowing the Appellant to use multiple year data while carrying out comparability analysts. 4. Re: Disallowance u/s 14A - Rs 4,60,85,478/: 4.1 The Assessing Officer grossly erred in carrying out disallowance u/s 14 A, disregarding the specific directions of Ld. DRP, to compute