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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-2014 M/S.Tbea Shenyang Transformer Dcit, International Group Company Limited Vs. Taxation Tbea Green Energy Park Vadodara. National Highway No.8 Village : Miyagam Karjan Vadodara Pan : Aadct 4557 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Assessment Order Dated 07.11.2017 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Accordance With The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]

Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.9,09,30,135 made by the TPO essentially represents additional profit attributable to Indian PE and therefore, the TPO and consequently the AO have clearly erred in making such adjustment. It be so held now. 3. The TPO, the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("the DRP") and consequently the AO have erred in facts as well

SOPHOS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer for determining Arms’ Length Price of the International Transaction undertaken by the assessee company and the TPO accepted the price at which International Transaction were recorded and no adverse inference was drawn by passing order dated 28-10-2019 under section 92CA(3) of the Act. Following the same, the Ld AO accepted the returned income filed

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

section 234B. Even otherwise the interest\ncomputed is excessive.\nThe Appellant submits that each of the above grounds/ sub-grounds are independent and\nwithout prejudice to one another.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above\ngrounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Repayment of Unsecured Loan 8. The Ld. AO/ TPO/ DRP have erred in making a downward adjustment of INR 12,63,95,034 in relation to accrued interest on repayment of unsecured loans. While making the aforementioned adjustment, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ TPO/ DRP have erred

BOCK COMPRESSORS INDIA PRIVATE,BENGALURU vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Study Report using Resale Price Method (RPM) accordance with Section 920 and Section 920 of the Act read with Rule 10B, 10C and 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the “Rules”) without providing the cogent reason. 3. The ld. AO., Ld. TPO and Ld. DRP erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that goods sold

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. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

transfer other than from P&L, without prejudice to above the Ld. AR further submitted that it is not necessary that the General Reserves are always created out of accumulated profits. General Reserves can be created in many ways including following transactions; general reserves can arise out of revaluation of certain assets due to amalgamation. The Ld. AR relied upon

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

BHAVNA SHETALKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

234B and 234C is unjustified.\n11.\nThe assessee also filed following additional grounds of appeal:\n1. The order passed by AO is required to be quashed as AO proceeded with\nassessment without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is mandatory\nrequirements.\n12.\nOn the additional ground relating to the alleged non issuance of\nnotice under section

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

price (ALP) of the international transaction as Nil. 7.1 The Ld. AO/TPO endorsed that the PSC is a self-serving document but erred in not allowing the expenses which were restricted in PSC to 1% of the total contract cost on the ground that cost benefit analysis was not done. It is submitted that prescribing 1% of contract cost

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

price (ALP) of the international transaction as Nil. 7.1 The Ld. AO/TPO endorsed that the PSC is a self-serving document but erred in not allowing the expenses which were restricted in PSC to 1% of the total contract cost on the ground that cost benefit analysis was not done. It is submitted that prescribing 1% of contract cost

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

price (ALP) of the international transaction as Nil. 7.1 The Ld. AO/TPO endorsed that the PSC is a self-serving document but erred in not allowing the expenses which were restricted in PSC to 1% of the total contract cost on the ground that cost benefit analysis was not done. It is submitted that prescribing 1% of contract cost

PUNEET SINGH R. BHADOURIA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(9), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

234B, 234C and 234D is not justified. 7. Initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not justified.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 14.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.1,49,070/-. Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 26.03.2019. Notice under Section 142(1) alongwith Questionnaire was issued

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B & 234D & 244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B & 234D & 244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate