ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee has raised the following grounds in respective appeals are under:- "8. The learned CIT(Appeals)-V, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the addition of income

MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

transfer pricing implications of the corporate guarantees as also on the methodology of determining its ALP, if necessary. Of course, no matter how good is the legislative framework, the importance of a very comprehensive analysis, in the transfer pricing study, of the nature of corporate guarantees issued by the assessees, can never be overemphasized. The sweeping generalizations, vague statements

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

Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'); 2.2 not accepting the overseas Associated Enterprises ('AEs') as the tested party, being the least complex of the transacting entities and instead considering the appellant as the tested party, thus violating the basic principles

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

Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'); 2.2 not accepting the overseas Associated Enterprises ('AEs') as the tested party, being the least complex of the transacting entities and instead considering the appellant as the tested party, thus violating the basic principles

MASTEK LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD) - 1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

addition was made. The appellant on the other hand has submitted that it has not incurred any specific expenditure, directly relating to the investment in units of mutual funds and earning exempt income thereon during the Financial Year 2007-08. The appellant has further submitted that as a matter of abundant caution, while filing the Return of income, the appellant

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MASTEK LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

addition was made. The appellant on the other hand has submitted that it has not incurred any specific expenditure, directly relating to the investment in units of mutual funds and earning exempt income thereon during the Financial Year 2007-08. The appellant has further submitted that as a matter of abundant caution, while filing the Return of income, the appellant

MASTEK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANG4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

addition was made. The appellant on the other hand has submitted that it has not incurred any specific expenditure, directly relating to the investment in units of mutual funds and earning exempt income thereon during the Financial Year 2007-08. The appellant has further submitted that as a matter of abundant caution, while filing the Return of income, the appellant

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MASTEK LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

addition was made. The appellant on the other hand has submitted that it has not incurred any specific expenditure, directly relating to the investment in units of mutual funds and earning exempt income thereon during the Financial Year 2007-08. The appellant has further submitted that as a matter of abundant caution, while filing the Return of income, the appellant

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)

additions made by the AO on Royalty payment by observing as follows: “… … 4.6. I have carefully examined the facts of the case, the submissions made by the appellant, the assessment order, and the transfer pricing order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act. The primary issue under consideration pertains to the determination of the ALP of the royalty payment

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)

additions made by the AO on Royalty payment by observing as follows: “… … 4.6. I have carefully examined the facts of the case, the submissions made by the appellant, the assessment order, and the transfer pricing order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act. The primary issue under consideration pertains to the determination of the ALP of the royalty payment

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

Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore the assessee submitted auditors’ report in Form No. 3CEB u/s 92E. During assessment-proceeding, the Ld. AO made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer [“Ld. TPO”] u/s 92CA for determining the Arm’s Length Price [“ALP”] of the “international transactions” done by assessee. In the course of proceeding before Ld. TPO, the assessee

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

Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore the assessee submitted auditors’ report in Form No. 3CEB u/s 92E. During assessment-proceeding, the Ld. AO made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer [“Ld. TPO”] u/s 92CA for determining the Arm’s Length Price [“ALP”] of the “international transactions” done by assessee. In the course of proceeding before Ld. TPO, the assessee

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

income by the assessee. We also observe that it has been held by various Courts that Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked while levying penalty in relation to the transfer pricing adjustment, when the said Explanation was neither referred nor relied upon at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

income by the assessee. We also observe that it has been held by various Courts that Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked while levying penalty in relation to the transfer pricing adjustment, when the said Explanation was neither referred nor relied upon at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

income by the assessee. We also observe that it has been held by various Courts that Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked while levying penalty in relation to the transfer pricing adjustment, when the said Explanation was neither referred nor relied upon at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

income by the assessee. We also observe that it has been held by various Courts that Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked while levying penalty in relation to the transfer pricing adjustment, when the said Explanation was neither referred nor relied upon at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

M/S. TBEA SHENYANG TRASFORMER GROPUP COMPANY LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAX.,, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 581/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Tbea Shenyang Deputy Commissioner Of Transformer Group Income Tax Vs. Company Limited International Taxation, National Highway No.-8, Vadodara Villae : Miyagam, Karja, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct4557F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Arpit Jain, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit. Dr 24/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025 O R D E R Per Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Am:

income from the transaction is offered for tax in India. Accordingly, I hold that on this count also the transfer pricing addition

ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH (INDIA) LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) LLP),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

addition proposed by the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AG) Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) of INR 3.354.09.319/- to the income