KALPTARU INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-3 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price was below the stamp duty valuation. It was held that the AO had been directed by the earlier 263 order to specifically address this issue, but had failed to take the appropriate action by not waiting for the DVO report and simply accepting the returned income. In these facts, PCIT held that the AO should have provisionally adopted

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

56(2)(x) of the Act, which was held as not falling in the category of underreporting or misreporting of income. 7.1 The assessee has also contended that his case is covered under the exception under Section 270A(6) of the Act. The said section is reproduced for the sake of easy understanding. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting

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:

2 to section 9 (1) of the Act, Shri Jagdish Lal should not be treated as PE of TBEA. 52. With regard to VEL, the contention was that the same did not constitute PE of TBEA China in India since MOU entered into with VEL for providing repair facilities to the transformers supplied to the PGCIL and there

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

X of the Act. 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below, and duly examined the material available on record. 14. The issue relates to the transfer 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

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

X of the Act. 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below, and duly examined the material available on record. 14. The issue relates to the transfer 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

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

X in general are special provisions dealing with computation of income in an international transaction. Those provisions will prevail over the general provisions. GeneraliaSpecialibus Non Derogant (general provisions must yield to the specific provisions). Generally speaking, the sections in the Act do not overlap one another and each section deals with the matter specified therein and goes no further

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

X in general are special provisions dealing with computation of income in an international transaction. Those provisions will prevail over the general provisions. GeneraliaSpecialibus Non Derogant (general provisions must yield to the specific provisions). Generally speaking, the sections in the Act do not overlap one another and each section deals with the matter specified therein and goes no further

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

X in general are special provisions dealing with computation of income in an international transaction. Those provisions will prevail over the general provisions. GeneraliaSpecialibus Non Derogant (general provisions must yield to the specific provisions). Generally speaking, the sections in the Act do not overlap one another and each section deals with the matter specified therein and goes no further

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

X in general are special provisions dealing with computation of income in an international transaction. Those provisions will prevail over the general provisions. GeneraliaSpecialibus Non Derogant (general provisions must yield to the specific provisions). Generally speaking, the sections in the Act do not overlap one another and each section deals with the matter specified therein and goes no further

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

X in general are special provisions dealing with computation of income in an international transaction. Those provisions will prevail over the general provisions. GeneraliaSpecialibus Non Derogant (general provisions must yield to the specific provisions). Generally speaking, the sections in the Act do not overlap one another and each section deals with the matter specified therein and goes no further

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

X in general are special provisions dealing with computation of income in an international transaction. Those provisions will prevail over the general provisions. GeneraliaSpecialibus Non Derogant (general provisions must yield to the specific provisions). Generally speaking, the sections in the Act do not overlap one another and each section deals with the matter specified therein and goes no further

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 addition, the TPO passed an order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on 31.12.2015 thereby quantifying an upward adjustment of Rs.60,83,440/- on International Transaction of the assessee. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act towards interest free advances to the Companies under same management amounting to Rs.1

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 addition, the TPO passed an order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on 31.12.2015 thereby quantifying an upward adjustment of Rs.60,83,440/- on International Transaction of the assessee. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act towards interest free advances to the Companies under same management amounting to Rs.1

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

X Rasta, Gujarat College Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006, Gujarat, India PAN: AACCC7727M (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri DhaneshBafna, Shri Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, A.Rs. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT- DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

2 per cent. We observe that in the instant facts, the assessee has computed the ALP at LIBOR plus 2.5%. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer on the Ground that the assessee has not given the comparable basis for arriving at the aforesaid rate. However, in our view, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order u/s. 92CA(5) r.w.s. 154 of the I. T. Act dtd. 18.07.2014 revised the addition on account of benchmarking of loan to Rs. 13,92,104/-. The copy of the order u/s 92CA(5) r.w.s. 154 of the I. T. Act was furnished. Appellant submitted that loan granted to its AE (subsidiary company) should

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order u/s. 92CA(5) r.w.s. 154 of the I. T. Act dtd. 18.07.2014 revised the addition on account of benchmarking of loan to Rs. 13,92,104/-. The copy of the order u/s 92CA(5) r.w.s. 154 of the I. T. Act was furnished. Appellant submitted that loan granted to its AE (subsidiary company) should

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order u/s. 92CA(5) r.w.s. 154 of the I. T. Act dtd. 18.07.2014 revised the addition on account of benchmarking of loan to Rs. 13,92,104/-. The copy of the order u/s 92CA(5) r.w.s. 154 of the I. T. Act was furnished. Appellant submitted that loan granted to its AE (subsidiary company) should