SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

section'133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). As per the said provisions of the Act, the power can be exercised only in case where the assessee has not afforded facility to income-tax authority to inspect books of account or other documents or to check or verify any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

transferred to its AE indirectly which amount to transfer of unique intangibles. Therefore, the profit split method will be appropriate method to determine ALP because assessee was not just manufacturer of the product. The AO/TPO further found that learned CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 while upholding the Profit Split Method taken the profit sharing ratio at 80:20 between

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

transferred to its AE indirectly which amount to transfer of unique intangibles. Therefore, the profit split method will be appropriate method to determine ALP because assessee was not just manufacturer of the product. The AO/TPO further found that learned CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 while upholding the Profit Split Method taken the profit sharing ratio at 80:20 between

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

transferred to its AE indirectly which amount to transfer of unique intangibles. Therefore, the profit split method will be appropriate method to determine ALP because assessee was not just manufacturer of the product. The AO/TPO further found that learned CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 while upholding the Profit Split Method taken the profit sharing ratio at 80:20 between

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

transferred to its AE indirectly which amount to transfer of unique intangibles. Therefore, the profit split method will be appropriate method to determine ALP because assessee was not just manufacturer of the product. The AO/TPO further found that learned CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 while upholding the Profit Split Method taken the profit sharing ratio at 80:20 between

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), ,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. HAZIRA LNG PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

prices, at which PLL has imported LNG in spot transactions, as external comparables. There is no dispute that this information was never in public domain, and that it was in response to the requisition under section 133(6) of the Act that the PLL furnished, vide letter dated 1st February 2012, to the Transfer

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

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

133(6) nor\nany summons under section 131 was issued to cross-verify the transaction.\nInstead, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure merely on the basis\nof conjecture and surmise. The Counsel submitted that both the Assessing\nOfficer and the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the expenditure was\nsupported by records and confirmations and that the disallowance made

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:

transfer pricing adjustments sustained by the lower authorities aggregating to Rs. 1,77,85,368/- were unwarranted since the preconditions Bundy India Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2009-10 for invoking section 92C(3) read with section 92CA(3) of the Act were not satisfied, and the authorities below erred in law in making the adjustments without properly establishing that

EFFECTIVE TELESERVICES PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3077/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-11) बनाम/ Effective Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Gandhinagar Circle, 1St Floor, It Tower Iv, Vs. Gandhinagar. Infocity, Nr. Infroda Circle, Gandhinagar – 382009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaa Ce9 318 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Dhinal Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Apporva Bharadwaj, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 13/05/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

section 133(6) of the Act from the comparable company and held that comparable company is engaged in the data processing services in insurance sector. Accordingly the TPO held that it is a fit case for comparable. Aggrieved assessee preferred as appeal to the ld. CIT-A. 8.3 The assessee before the ld. CIT (A) filed the screenshot from

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

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

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

6 are that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer by sustaining the addition of prior period income of Rs. ITA No.1947/Ahd/2015(by Assessee) & Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year - 2010-11 4,29,490/- under the provisions of section 41 of the Act. The assessee also agitated the amount of income