SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INA BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CICLE-1(1)(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

92C of the Act.\n12. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the\nlearned AO in levying penalty on debatable issue.\n13. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the\nlearned AO in levying penalty merely on the basis of difference of opinion

BUNDY INDIA LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, Ground Number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1403/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Bundy India Limited The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Plot No.2, Circle-1(1) V/S. Gidc Industrial Estate, Baroda Makarpura Vadodaria - 390 010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacb 3039 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shree Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

92C(3) read with section 92CA(3) of the Act were satisfied. 4. ITES segment (Adjustment of Rs. 4,447,175) 4.1. The Id. AO/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in holding that the international transaction of providing back-office support services by the appellant to its associated enterprises is not at arm's length and making

BUNDY INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

92C(3) read with section 92CA(3) of the Act were satisfied. 4. Manufacturing segment (Adjustment of Rs.22,929,998) 4.1 The AO/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in holding that the international transaction of import of raw material by the Appellant from the associated enterprises ('AEs') in not at arm's length and rejecting transfer pricing documentation

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

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction

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

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction

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

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction

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

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction

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

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction

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

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary firm 'Intas Pharmaceuticals from Rs 39,62,30,463/- to Rs 12,12,20,435 /- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction

BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 92C(3), which mandates the determination of the arm's length price (ALP) using prescribed methods. The DRP acknowledged relevant judicial decisions, which have held that when no expenditure is necessary, the ALP can be deemed as "nil," negating the need for applying a specific method to arrive at a conclusion. Furthermore, the DRP relied on the judgment

HAGGLUNDS DRIVES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( NOW MERGED IN BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 92C(3), which mandates the determination of the arm's length price (ALP) using prescribed methods. The DRP acknowledged relevant judicial decisions, which have held that when no expenditure is necessary, the ALP can be deemed as "nil," negating the need for applying a specific method to arrive at a conclusion. Furthermore, the DRP relied on the judgment

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)

3 and 3.1 are allowed. 12. As regards to Ground No. 4 and 4.1, the disallowance of depreciation on oil will and oil field at higher rate of 60% as per Appendix I to the Rules, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of extraction/production of mineral oil and entitled to depreciation at the rate

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)

3 and 3.1 are allowed. 12. As regards to Ground No. 4 and 4.1, the disallowance of depreciation on oil will and oil field at higher rate of 60% as per Appendix I to the Rules, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of extraction/production of mineral oil and entitled to depreciation at the rate

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)

3 and 3.1 are allowed. 12. As regards to Ground No. 4 and 4.1, the disallowance of depreciation on oil will and oil field at higher rate of 60% as per Appendix I to the Rules, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of extraction/production of mineral oil and entitled to depreciation at the rate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 92C of the Act prescribes the methods under which arm's length price can be computed. Rule 10B of the Rules lays down the mechanism for computation of arm's length price under I.T.A Nos. 2005 & 2006/Ahd/2025 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 12 DCIT vs. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd. different methods. As per rule

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 92C of the Act prescribes the methods under which arm's length price can be computed. Rule 10B of the Rules lays down the mechanism for computation of arm's length price under I.T.A Nos. 2005 & 2006/Ahd/2025 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 12 DCIT vs. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd. different methods. As per rule

SHELL ENERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), 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

section 92C(2) of the Act. 6. Having stated so, the ld.counsel for the assessee began by making pleadings on ground no.5(iv) raised before us. Arguments were made at length and reference was made to the several voluminous documents placed in paper-book before us, running to four volumes, filed on behalf of the assessee. 7. The primary contention

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

section 92C(2) of the Act. 6. Having stated so, the ld.counsel for the assessee began by making pleadings on ground no.5(iv) raised before us. Arguments were made at length and reference was made to the several voluminous documents placed in paper-book before us, running to four volumes, filed on behalf of the assessee. 7. The primary contention

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. M/S LINDE ENGINEERING PVT LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed as infructuous

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

disallowance u/s 10A amounting to Rs.31,74,80,850/- without appreciating the facts that as per the provisions of section 92C(4) of the Act, no deduction u/s 10A is allowable in respect of amount of income by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced as a result of computation of arm's length price.” 3