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

36(1)(iii) 7 Disallowance of Sales Promotion / Business 23,05,47,312 Promotion Expenses under Section 37 8 Disallowance of Commission Paid to Non- 23,71,88,037 Residents 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), vide order dated 04.08.2021, partly allowed the appeal by granting relief

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

36(1)(iii) 7 Disallowance of Sales Promotion / Business 23,05,47,312 Promotion Expenses under Section 37 8 Disallowance of Commission Paid to Non- 23,71,88,037 Residents 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), vide order dated 04.08.2021, partly allowed the appeal by granting relief

LAXMI HYDROCOLLOIDS,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(8), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 416/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Laxmi Hydrocolloids, I.T.O., Plot No.104, Vs. Ward-3(2)(8), Devraj Industrial Estate, Ahmedabad. Piplej Pirana Road, Ahmedabad-380022. Pan: Aaefl2440D

Transfer Pricing Officer/Assessing officer in making upward adjustment invoking section 92- BA (i) of the Act in the present facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the said section stood omitted with effect from 1^-2017 from the statute itself. Hence, we find the same is without any basis, void ab initio and without jurisdiction, hi our considered opinion

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDO COLCHEM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDO COLCHEM PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non- residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

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

36. We have noticed that the 'OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations' specifically recognizes that an activity in the nature of shareholder activity, which is solely because of ownership interest in one or more of the group members, i.e. in the capacity as shareholder "would not justify a charge to the recipient companies". It is thus

KARNAVATI ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

section 92 otiose and the definition of 'internal transaction' u/s 92B and rule 10B redundant. This is patently an unacceptable position having no sanction of the Indian transfer pricing law. Borrowing a contrary mandate of the TP provisions of other countries and reading it into our provisions is not permissible. The requirement under our law is to compute the income

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

section 92 otiose and the definition of 'internal transaction' u/s 92B and rule 10B redundant. This is patently an unacceptable position having no sanction of the Indian transfer pricing law. Borrowing a contrary mandate of the TP provisions of other countries and reading it into our provisions is not permissible. The requirement under our law is to compute the income

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

section 92 otiose and the definition of 'internal transaction' u/s 92B and rule 10B redundant. This is patently an unacceptable position having no sanction of the Indian transfer pricing law. Borrowing a contrary mandate of the TP provisions of other countries and reading it into our provisions is not permissible. The requirement under our law is to compute the income

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding the payment of Rs. 5,54,00,000/- to the associate concerns covered by section 40A(2)(b), in the name of fee for use of technical knowhow, for the manufacture

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

transfer pricing. Thus, the blind aggregation / averaging can be fatal to all parties, the present assessee, any other taxpayer and even the revenue. Hence we should not entertain or encourage a belief that aggregation or averaging is allowed in all cases or in any case. In fact, it is the assessee who must prove or at least present the facts