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

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

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

ASANDAS & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

45,74,545 as per Return of Income. 2.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in not granting eligible MAT credit to the Appellant (out of MAT credit brought forward from previous years). 3. Ground No. 3 - Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AA of the Act 3.1. On the facts

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 provisions are special provisions introduced with an aim of checking tax base erosion. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest to be charged by the assessee from it’s AEs 20. Another argument advanced by the assessee was that the Ld. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest

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 provisions are special provisions introduced with an aim of checking tax base erosion. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest to be charged by the assessee from it’s AEs 20. Another argument advanced by the assessee was that the Ld. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest

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 provisions are special provisions introduced with an aim of checking tax base erosion. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest to be charged by the assessee from it’s AEs 20. Another argument advanced by the assessee was that the Ld. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest

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 provisions are special provisions introduced with an aim of checking tax base erosion. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest to be charged by the assessee from it’s AEs 20. Another argument advanced by the assessee was that the Ld. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest

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 provisions are special provisions introduced with an aim of checking tax base erosion. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest to be charged by the assessee from it’s AEs 20. Another argument advanced by the assessee was that the Ld. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest

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 provisions are special provisions introduced with an aim of checking tax base erosion. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest to be charged by the assessee from it’s AEs 20. Another argument advanced by the assessee was that the Ld. CIT(A) has not commented upon the correct amount of interest

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 581/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Tbea Shenyang Deputy Commissioner Of Transformer Group Income Tax Vs. Company Limited International Taxation, National Highway No.-8, Vadodara Villae : Miyagam, Karja, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct4557F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Arpit Jain, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit. Dr 24/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025 O R D E R Per Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Am:

3) of the IT Rules and more particularly in view of the fact that entire income from the transaction is offered for tax in India. Accordingly, I hold that on this count also the transfer pricing addition is unsustainable and is hereby deleted.” 17. Learned CIT(A) further observed that the transfer pricing addition was incorrectly made by selecting functionally

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) (1) AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 144C(3) of the Act, adopted the TPO’s findings and passed an assessment order determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.80,85,45,535/-, after making the following adjustments: and CO No.10/Ahd/2024 (By Assessee) The Asstt.CIT vs. Inductotherm (India) Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year:2016-17 3 - Transfer Pricing

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INA BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CICLE-1(1)(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), was finalized on 29.05.2013,\ndetermining the assessed loss at Rs. (-)2,00,59,396/-. The assessee is\nengaged in manufacturing and trading in needle roller bearings and engine\ncomponents. During the course of assessment proceedings, two main\ndisallowances were made in the assessment order: a Transfer Pricing\nadjustment amounting

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ATUL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

45,510/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had entered into DCIT vs. Atul Limited Page 2 of 11 certain international transactions and specified domestic transactions with its associated enterprises (AEs) which were referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of these transactions

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

price paid by the AEs to the assessee is at arm's length within the methods laid down in the Act and the judicial precedents rendered on this issue. The Ld. TPO is directed to consider the same in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 32. He, therefore, contended that

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

price paid by the AEs to the assessee is at arm's length within the methods laid down in the Act and the judicial precedents rendered on this issue. The Ld. TPO is directed to consider the same in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 32. He, therefore, contended that

MEHAAN ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

45,390/-. According to the Ld. PCIT, the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct proper enquiry on this issue and therefore the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the order was set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh. Mahaan Enterprise Vs. PCIT Asst. Year

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.60,83,440/- pertaining to corporate guarantee fee; as made by the TPO and affirmed in dispute resolution penal; "DRP"s directions. The said lower authorities hold that the assessee ought to have charged @1.24% on corporate guarantee amount of Rs.49,06,00,000/-. The assessee admittedly had provided the corporate guarantee in question

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.60,83,440/- pertaining to corporate guarantee fee; as made by the TPO and affirmed in dispute resolution penal; "DRP"s directions. The said lower authorities hold that the assessee ought to have charged @1.24% on corporate guarantee amount of Rs.49,06,00,000/-. The assessee admittedly had provided the corporate guarantee in question

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR vs. SHRI VALLABHBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: The Tribunal On

3 ACIT Vs. Shri Vallabhbhai Dhanjibhai Pate extracts, hence he along with two co-owners cancelled Sale Deed dated 01-05-2006 and they were compelled to pay stamp duty of Rs.1.03 crore. The assessee further submitted that he has not actually transferred any property as per provisions of section 45 r.w.s