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

pricing adjustment made by the TPO and confirmed by the CIT(A) by imputing notional interest on receivables outstanding from AEs beyond a credit period of 180 days, resulting in an upward adjustment of Rs.14,64,47,827/-. It is not disputed that the assessee had benchmarked its international transactions of export of finished goods to AEs under the TNMM

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ADD./JT. DCIT/ITO NATONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Schneider Electric Infrastructure D.C.I.T, Limited, Vs Circle-2(1)(1), Milestone 87, Vadodara Halol Vadodara. Highway, Village Kotambi, Po Jaroad, Vadodara-391510 Pan : Aapcs 6078 Q

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Income-tax Act 1961 ("the Act") read with Rule 1OD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("Rules"); 3.2. erroneously rejecting the selection of foreign associated enterprise ("AE") as tested party for calculation of the arm's length price by the Appellant in the TP documentation maintained

GULBRANDSEN CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

Section 92 of the I.T. Act. The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) for each of the 4 chemicals was determined by the TPO to be the average sale price charged by appellant to non-AEs. Each transaction of sale of chemicals to the AEs needed to be benchmarked with reference to the CUP and if the CUP exceeded the sale price

GULBRANDSEN CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 92 of the I.T. Act. The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) for each of the 4 chemicals was determined by the TPO to be the average sale price charged by appellant to non-AEs. Each transaction of sale of chemicals to the AEs needed to be benchmarked with reference to the CUP and if the CUP exceeded the sale price

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GULBRANDSEN CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,, BARODA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 92 of the I.T. Act. The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) for each of the 4 chemicals was determined by the TPO to be the average sale price charged by appellant to non-AEs. Each transaction of sale of chemicals to the AEs needed to be benchmarked with reference to the CUP and if the CUP exceeded the sale price

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer, it was noticed that the assessee has reimbursed its US based AE, i.e. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc to the extent of Rs 2,94,18,039 in respect of reimbursement of product liability insurance charges, to the ITA Nos. 954/Ahd/17 and 213/Ahd/18 Assessment years: 2012-13 and 2013-14 Page 24 of 85 extent

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer, it was noticed that the assessee has reimbursed its US based AE, i.e. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc to the extent of Rs 2,94,18,039 in respect of reimbursement of product liability insurance charges, to the ITA Nos. 954/Ahd/17 and 213/Ahd/18 Assessment years: 2012-13 and 2013-14 Page 24 of 85 extent

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 ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, VADODARA vs. M/S. KEMROCK INDUSTRIES AND EXPORTS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2009-10 The Acit M/S.Kemrock Industries & Exports Ltd. Cir.1(1)(2) Vs Vill. Asoj, Vadodara-Halol Expressway Vadodara Taluka – Waghodia Vadodara – 391 510 Pan : Aaack 8810 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : - None - Revenue By : Shri Mohd Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pramod M. Jagtap, Vice-This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara [Cit(A)] Dated 04Th March-2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To Transfer Pricing Adjustment.

391 510 PAN : AAACK 8810 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : - None - Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 15/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order

SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

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

391 320 Vadodara District, Gujarat [PAN: AABCE7565N] Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara ……………..…........Respondent Appearances by Manoj Pardasini and Miral Sangharajka for the assessee MSA Khan and Vinod Tanwani for the revenue Date of concluding the hearing : December 12, 2018 Date of pronouncement : March 08, 2019 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar

L.K. INDIA PVT. LTD. ( CURRENTLY KNOWN AS SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

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

391 510 [PAAN: AAACL3263C] Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Vadodara ……..….….....Respondent Appearances by: Mayur Swadia for the appellant Rakesh Jha for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : May 29, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : May 31, 2017 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar AM: 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

391/- made on short term advance to its overseas subsidiaries is held justified and is hereby confirmed. Relevant ground of appeal is rejected. 8. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contentions made before the lower authorities that the impugned advances were in the nature of quasi equity capital since they were given to the subsidiaries which

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

391/- made on short term advance to its overseas subsidiaries is held justified and is hereby confirmed. Relevant ground of appeal is rejected. 8. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contentions made before the lower authorities that the impugned advances were in the nature of quasi equity capital since they were given to the subsidiaries which

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

391/- made on short term advance to its overseas subsidiaries is held justified and is hereby confirmed. Relevant ground of appeal is rejected. 8. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contentions made before the lower authorities that the impugned advances were in the nature of quasi equity capital since they were given to the subsidiaries which

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

391 775\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AABCH 9935 K\nAssessee by :\nRevenue by :\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\nShri Naman Desai, AR\nShri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing\nघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement:\nआदेश/ORDER\nPER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM:\n12/03/2025\n13/03/2025\nThis appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated\n13.08.2024 passed

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

Transfer Pricing. (2) That the ld.ClT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,38,592/- made on account of prior period expenses. (3) That the I d.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,28,46,340/- made on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ABHILASHA PHARMA PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2015-16 Abhilasha Pharma Pvt Ltd., The Dcit, Vs 11, Chaudhari Co-Op. Circle 1(1)(1), Housing Society Ltd., Ahmedabad Paldigam, Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007 Pan : Aafca 5539 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Sumar Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per T.R. Senthil Kumar:

transfer of goods or services referred to in section 80- 1A(8): (3) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in section 80-1A(10); (4) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or section 10AA, to which section 80-1A(8) or section

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

price to the unit in India that the profit is shifted from non-eligible unit in India, there is no loss of tax to exchequer as such shift of profit is even otherwise tax neutral. If at all, it is only the Revenue of the foreign countries which would be adversely affected and not at any rate Indian Revenue

M/S. ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

391 770. [PAN: AABCI 7013 D] vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(2), Baroda. …………......Respondent Appearances by Dhinal Shah for the Appellant Lalit P. Jain for the Respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 05.12.2018 Date of pronouncement : 04.03.2019 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, Vice President: 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant