ASANDAS & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

transfer pricing report, if the latter is not found to be the Most Appropriate Method. 33.3 Adverting to the facts of the extant case, it is seen that the assessee applied 'Other method' in its TPSR with a note on para 7.3 that: 'Given that the Other method has been selected as the most appropriate method, the other methods

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:

transferred in the controlled and uncontrolled transactions could materially affect the price even though the nature of the business activities undertaken may be sufficiently similar to generate the same overall profit margin.........” Consequently, for the application of CUP as the most appropriate method, the factors of comparability are required to be strictly met. On the facts of the case

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:

natural justice as the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to verify or cross-examine such data. The TPO’s recharacterization of the assessee’s services as high-end KPO and inclusion of supernormal profit-making companies led to a distorted computation of the arm’s length price. The learned counsel submitted that the TPO and CIT(A) erred

PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The original return of income was filed on 24.09.2016 declaring total income at Rs.3

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 documentation. 4.2 The AO/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disregarding methodical search process undertaken by the appellant and rejecting 5 (five) out of 8 (eight) comparable companies selected by the Appellant, without taking cognizance of Rule 10B(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules"). 4.3 The AO violated the principle of natural justice

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

transfer pricing perspective. But, the Assessing Officer/TPO failed to do so. The assessee’s export profit margin having transaction with AE. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is relying on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Kusum Health Care (P.) Limited, [2018] 99 taxmann.com 431 (Delhi

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

transfer pricing perspective. But, the Assessing Officer/TPO failed to do so. The assessee’s export profit margin having transaction with AE. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is relying on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Kusum Health Care (P.) Limited, [2018] 99 taxmann.com 431 (Delhi

HAZIRA PORT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CICLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the above terms

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

natural justice, and concluding the proceedings in a haste causing prejudice to the Appellant. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/TPO have erred in rejecting the additional ground of objection filed by the Appellant without considering the same on merits or providing any logical rationale for its rejection. Transfer Pricing

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

natural justice.\n8. 1. Since the core issue in the appeal pertains to Transfer Pricing\nadjustments, the appeal ought to have

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

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

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

SKAPS INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

natural justice. Ground no.1 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 9. As regards to ground nos.3 to 10, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in confirming addition of Rs.2,42,26,184/- made by the Transfer Pricing

GFL LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

transfer pricing addition of ₹6,76,32,335/- as mentioned in the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3). The net adjustment of ₹25,25,88,865/- for Wind Mahidad is also included in the total disallowance under Section 80IA of ₹38,18,57,940/-, comprising ₹12,92,69,075/- for the Dahej Coal Power Plant

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.60,83,440/- pertaining to corporate guarantee fee; as made by the TPO and affirmed in dispute resolution penal; "DRP"s directions. The said lower authorities hold that the assessee ought to have charged @1.24% on corporate guarantee amount of Rs.49,06,00,000/-. The assessee admittedly had provided the corporate guarantee in question

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.60,83,440/- pertaining to corporate guarantee fee; as made by the TPO and affirmed in dispute resolution penal; "DRP"s directions. The said lower authorities hold that the assessee ought to have charged @1.24% on corporate guarantee amount of Rs.49,06,00,000/-. The assessee admittedly had provided the corporate guarantee in question

LESSO BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing upward adjustment of Rs.43,29,60,041/-. Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1) vide order dated 18-09-2023 determining the income at Rs.14,38,41,948/- as follows: Sr. No. Description Amount (in Rs.) 1 Total loss as per Return of Income filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

natural justice as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram reported in 125 ITR 713 held that the income tax authorities before relying upon any material are required to provide such material

MANISH DEVENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in full

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.918/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Devendrakumar Shah The Ito बनाम/ 206, 2Nd Floor, Kalash 1 Ward-5(3)(1) V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqjps 4226 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

natural justice. 8.12. The CIT(A) attempted to distinguish the case of Varun Nagjibhai Patel (supra) from the present case by arguing that the decision in Varun Patel was rendered in a case where the AO had not conducted a proper inquiry. The CIT(A) contended that in the present case, the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and relied

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. INA BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO observed that the assessee had calculated it’s Profit Level Indicator (“PLI”) at 2.38%. The assessee had selected five comparables and their mean margin was 2.22%. Hence, the assessee has claimed that the assessee to manufacturing segment was at Arm’s Length. However, the TPO noticed that the assessee has made a claim with