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

disallowance of the payment made to the AE in respect of the said optional services, resulting in adjustment being made to the impugned transaction to the tune of Rs.5,76,79,229/-. ITA No.435 and 558/Ahd/2022 6 8. The emphasis of the ld.counsel for the assessee, therefore, was to the effect that the TPO had made adjustment for determining

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

disallowance of the payment made to the AE in respect of the said optional services, resulting in adjustment being made to the impugned transaction to the tune of Rs.5,76,79,229/-. ITA No.435 and 558/Ahd/2022 6 8. The emphasis of the ld.counsel for the assessee, therefore, was to the effect that the TPO had made adjustment for determining

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.264/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Acit Adani Enterprises Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-1 (1)(1) Adani Corporate House V/S. Ahmedabad Shantigram Near Vaishno Devi Circle S.G. Highway Khodiyar Ahmedabad- 382 421 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 2804 L अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

TP adjustment and the disallowance of Rs.49,11,450/- under section 37 of the Act. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in this appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment/addition of Rs. 1,12,17.629/- on account of the purchase

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)

disallowed by making an ALPsomething clearly contrary to the scheme of the Act, these expenses were fully admissible for deduction. In any case, Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. DCIT there is not even a whisper of a discussion about the method of ascertaining the ALP employed by the TPO. When a TPO makes an ALP adjustment, he has to justify

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

TP adjustment, certain other additions were also made in the final order. The assessee had preferred ITA No.1764/Ahd/2013 (Bundy India Limited vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2007-08- 3 – an appeal before the CIT(A) which was only partly allowed. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The grounds raised by the assessee

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

TP).No.2365 and 2366/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. D.C.I.T, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House, Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Dinesh Hall, Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380009. PAN: AAACT5456A And Asstt. Year 2015-16 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. A.C.I.T, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House, Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Dinesh Hall, Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Disallowance u/s 14A – Rs. 8,07,84,146 as discussed Book Profit u/s. 115JB Rs. 2011,70,46,681 Tax @ 18.5% Rs. 372,16,53,636 9. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,04,62,99,990/- under Section 143C(B) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act under the normal provision

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

disallowance of\ndepreciation was levied through a separate order dated 25.03.2015, and the\nassessee had not offered any explanation regarding the TP adjustment of\nRs. 8,13,00,000/- . Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that this was a fit\ncase for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income.\n4. In appeal before

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:

methodical search process undertaken by the assessee and in arbitrarily rejecting the comparables selected by it. It was submitted that the amount of management charges disallowed by the TPO/CIT(A) had already been deducted from the Bundy India Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2009-10 operating cost base while computing the operating margins of the manufacturing segment, and after such

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TP adjustments need to be deleted on this count as well. This ratio is squarely applicable in the present appeal as well. f) The ITAT also gave credence to the fact that Schaeffler China charged service fee at the rate of actual cost incurred plus a markup of 5% which is of the nature Cost plus Method prescribed under

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TP adjustments need to be deleted on this count as well. This ratio is squarely applicable in the present appeal as well. f) The ITAT also gave credence to the fact that Schaeffler China charged service fee at the rate of actual cost incurred plus a markup of 5% which is of the nature Cost plus Method prescribed under

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TP adjustments need to be deleted on this count as well. This ratio is squarely applicable in the present appeal as well. f) The ITAT also gave credence to the fact that Schaeffler China charged service fee at the rate of actual cost incurred plus a markup of 5% which is of the nature Cost plus Method prescribed under

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TP adjustments need to be deleted on this count as well. This ratio is squarely applicable in the present appeal as well. f) The ITAT also gave credence to the fact that Schaeffler China charged service fee at the rate of actual cost incurred plus a markup of 5% which is of the nature Cost plus Method prescribed under

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TP adjustments need to be deleted on this count as well. This ratio is squarely applicable in the present appeal as well. f) The ITAT also gave credence to the fact that Schaeffler China charged service fee at the rate of actual cost incurred plus a markup of 5% which is of the nature Cost plus Method prescribed under

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TP adjustments need to be deleted on this count as well. This ratio is squarely applicable in the present appeal as well. f) The ITAT also gave credence to the fact that Schaeffler China charged service fee at the rate of actual cost incurred plus a markup of 5% which is of the nature Cost plus Method prescribed under

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TP adjustments need to be deleted on this count as well. This ratio is squarely applicable in the present appeal as well. f) The ITAT also gave credence to the fact that Schaeffler China charged service fee at the rate of actual cost incurred plus a markup of 5% which is of the nature Cost plus Method prescribed under

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TP adjustments need to be deleted on this count as well. This ratio is squarely applicable in the present appeal as well. f) The ITAT also gave credence to the fact that Schaeffler China charged service fee at the rate of actual cost incurred plus a markup of 5% which is of the nature Cost plus Method prescribed under

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TP adjustments need to be deleted on this count as well. This ratio is squarely applicable in the present appeal as well. f) The ITAT also gave credence to the fact that Schaeffler China charged service fee at the rate of actual cost incurred plus a markup of 5% which is of the nature Cost plus Method prescribed under