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:

transfer pricing adjustment needs to be made in the given facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(a) and we uphold the same. In the result, this issue is also decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 31. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer who, after examining the transactions, held that the profit level indicator of the assessee was not within the arm’s length range. Accordingly, an upward adjustment of Rs. 3,94,09,319/- was proposed. Another issue examined during the scrutiny was the substantial mismatch between the closing written down value (WDV) of assets in the preceding year

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

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

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

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

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

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

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

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

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

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

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

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

THE DCITBHARUCH RANGE,, BHARUCH vs. HEUBACH COLOUR PVT.LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, Ground Number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) disagreed with the valuation method used by the Assessee and instead proposed using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for valuing the intangibles. The TPO was of the view that the price paid by CL to Avecia Ltd. in 2002 for similar intangibles should serve as the arm's length price (ALP) for the Assessee

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest 15,18,41,720 on advances to AEs 2 Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest 15,18,41,720 on advances to AEs 2 Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill

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

Transfer Pricing\nadjustment amounting to Rs. 17,15,40,000/- and a disallowance of\nadditional depreciation on second-hand machinery

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)

price of a transaction and does not have the jurisdiction to examine the allowability of expenses as provided in section 37 of the Act. [Luwa India Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court) (I.T. A.No.296 of 2017), Lumax Industries Limited (Delhi High Court) (ITA Nos. 102,103, 104 & 587/2014), Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Cadila Healthcare

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2015-16 Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. (Formerly Vs. The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Known As Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad. 4Th Floor, D-Wing, Zydus Corporate Park, Scheme No.63, Survey No.536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr.Vaishnodvi Circle, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacc 6253 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Jigar Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta

transfer pricing report at pages 48-49 of the paper book. He drew attention to the supply and distribution agreement at pages 491-498 of the paper book to reiterate that the assessee is the IP owner. He further drew our attention to pages 505-592 of the paper book, to the supportings for expenses reimbursed by Zydus France

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

depreciation on computers, telephone and reuters was filed. However, the basis of allocation of expenses under these heads could not be substantiated. Further, why other expenses were not to be allocated also could not be explained. It is seen that this is merely an estimated amount without any validation.” 9 Axis Bank Limited Vs. ACIT AY : 2018-19 11. Referring

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

transfer pricing study in not submitted by the appellant. 6.3 The AO/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in disregarding aggregation of management fees with the manufacturing segment as adopted by the appellant for benchmarking the international transactions. 6.4 The AO/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in holding that benefit received by the appellant on paying management

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

transfer pricing adjustment made to the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AE in terms of provisions of section 92CA of the Act. The said grounds read as under: “1. Ld. AO/ TPO/ DRP erred in law and on facts in determining upward adjustment of Rs. 1, 60, 31, 0507- in respect of international transaction without

HANNING MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Pricing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “TPO"] under Section\n92CA of the Act.\nFacts of the Case:\n2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of synchronous\ndrain pumps used in washing machines and dishwashers. The assessee filed\nits return of income on 28.11.2017, declaring a business loss of\nRs.21,48,541/-. The case was selected for Complete

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld TPO) under the directions of Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon’ble DRP), erred in making an upward adjustment of Rs 2.22 61.539/- in relation to the international transaction of payment of Infrastructure Consultancy and support charges to Associated Enterprise (AE) The Appellant prays that the addition made by the Ld AO TPO in relation