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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE RECYCLING LLP, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that if it had failed to maintain the necessary documents for determining the arm's length DCIT vs. Priya Blue Recycling LLP Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– price as required under section 92D, the TPO should have made adjustments to the transfer

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,35,19,424/- and disallowance of sales/business/products promotion expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.28,24,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of commission paid to non-resident amounting to Rs.67,39,814/- and disallowance of expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.95

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,35,19,424/- and disallowance of sales/business/products promotion expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.28,24,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of commission paid to non-resident amounting to Rs.67,39,814/- and disallowance of expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.95

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— ITA No. 194/Ahd/2022 [ M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. MYTRAH VAYU (GUJARAT) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing as per provisions of Section 92BA r.w.s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. However, he stated that out of abundant

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarn.K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. 7Th Floor, Popular House, Central Circle-1(2) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacn 9377 N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar Revenue By: Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 & 19.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.06.2025

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 11.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has contended that related parties have purchased similar goods from third parties and after considering, their commission, freight and other charges, bills were raised to assessee company. There is only marginal increase in purchase price of third party while making sale invoice to the assessee

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

40A(7) - - 1,05,47,731 - - - 3. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who partly allowed appeals. Therefore, both assessee and revenue are in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 1772/Ahd/2015 – A.Y. 2002-03 (Appeal against order of CIT(A), dated 17/03/2015) I. MERITS 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST