THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

144C of the Act, vide assessment order dated 28.01.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.430,72,97,310/-. The AO made following additions/disallowances: ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 3 Sr. Particulars of Addition/Disallowance Amount (Rs.) No. 1 Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest 15,18,41,720 on advances to AEs 2 Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

144C of the Act, vide assessment order dated 28.01.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.430,72,97,310/-. The AO made following additions/disallowances: ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 3 Sr. Particulars of Addition/Disallowance Amount (Rs.) No. 1 Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest 15,18,41,720 on advances to AEs 2 Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill

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

property or unique assets that distinguish it from potential uncontrolled comparables. Thus, in a sense, the tested party would have lesser risk as compared to the other transacting party or the real entrepreneur. 22. As per the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010, when applying a cost plus, resale price or transactional net margin method, it is necessary to choose

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

property or unique assets that distinguish it from potential uncontrolled comparables. Thus, in a sense, the tested party would have lesser risk as compared to the other transacting party or the real entrepreneur. 22. As per the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010, when applying a cost plus, resale price or transactional net margin method, it is necessary to choose

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Section 90(2), where there is a DTAA between India and any country outside India, the more favourable of the two provisions, viz., under the DTAA or under the I.T. Act, are to be applied in case of the assessee. However, in my view, the point as to whether the payments are in the nature of fees for technical services

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Section 90(2), where there is a DTAA between India and any country outside India, the more favourable of the two provisions, viz., under the DTAA or under the I.T. Act, are to be applied in case of the assessee. However, in my view, the point as to whether the payments are in the nature of fees for technical services

JAVITH ANVER BASHA,BANGALORE vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-INTL. TAXN., VADODARA

In the result, the matter is restored to the file of DRP for carrying out the above directions

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

house property for consideration of 1,40,00,000/- in Bangalore. The Department initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and completed the assessment in the hands of the assessee at an income of Rs. 14,15,000/-. 4. The assessee filed objections to the draft assessment framed by the Ld. ACIT, Vadodara. However, the DRP dismissed the appeal

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. ITA No.805

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. ITA No.805

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

144C passed by the Assessing Officer, the Appellant wishes to raise the following Grounds of Appeal for the kind adjudication of the Hon'ble ITAT: 1. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making upward adjustments on international transactions under the provisions relating to Transfer Pricing in respect of the following three issues: a. Addition

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

144C of the act vide order dated 23rd Feb, 2012 whereas various additions were made. Assessee has not filed any objection against draft assessment order before the dispute resolution panel. Being aggrieved with the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

144C of the act vide order dated 23rd Feb, 2012 whereas various additions were made. Assessee has not filed any objection against draft assessment order before the dispute resolution panel. Being aggrieved with the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

5 is already dealt with, in the course of dealing with the appeal filed by the assessee earlier in this order, and we need not repeat our findings thereon. Suffice to say, for the reasons set out earlier, this ground is also dismissed. 37. In ground no. 6, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: 6. That

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

5 is already dealt with, in the course of dealing with the appeal filed by the assessee earlier in this order, and we need not repeat our findings thereon. Suffice to say, for the reasons set out earlier, this ground is also dismissed. 37. In ground no. 6, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: 6. That

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

5 is already dealt with, in the course of dealing with the appeal filed by the assessee earlier in this order, and we need not repeat our findings thereon. Suffice to say, for the reasons set out earlier, this ground is also dismissed. 37. In ground no. 6, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: 6. That

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

5 is already dealt with, in the course of dealing with the appeal filed by the assessee earlier in this order, and we need not repeat our findings thereon. Suffice to say, for the reasons set out earlier, this ground is also dismissed. 37. In ground no. 6, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: 6. That

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

5 is already dealt with, in the course of dealing with the appeal filed by the assessee earlier in this order, and we need not repeat our findings thereon. Suffice to say, for the reasons set out earlier, this ground is also dismissed. 37. In ground no. 6, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: 6. That

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

5 is already dealt with, in the course of dealing with the appeal filed by the assessee earlier in this order, and we need not repeat our findings thereon. Suffice to say, for the reasons set out earlier, this ground is also dismissed. 37. In ground no. 6, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: 6. That

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

144C(8) on 27th December, 2013. The assessee has objected two comparables Cosmic Global Ltd. and Coral Hub Ltd. before the DRP on the ground that they follow different business model by outsourcing their function. The said companies outsource significant portion of the work to outside vendors. It was also submitted that the business model of the aforesaid companies were