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

Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'); 2.2 not accepting the overseas Associated Enterprises ('AEs') as the tested party, being the least complex of the transacting entities and instead considering the appellant as the tested party, thus violating the basic principles

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

Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'); 2.2 not accepting the overseas Associated Enterprises ('AEs') as the tested party, being the least complex of the transacting entities and instead considering the appellant as the tested party, thus violating the basic principles

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

transfer pricing) 6. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer stated that as per audit report in form no. 3CEB filed by assessee, the total value of international transaction entered into with its overseas AE’s were more than prescribed limit. Therefore, according to the provisions of section

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

Section 92CA of the Act. 4. At the time of the hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is entirely covered in assessee’s own case by the judgment and order passed Meghmani Organics Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2009-10 by the Co-ordinate Bench in favour

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

Section 92C of the Act prescribes the methods under which arm's length price can be computed. Rule 10B of the Rules lays down the mechanism for computation of arm's length price under I.T.A Nos. 2005 & 2006/Ahd/2025 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 12 DCIT vs. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd. different methods. As per rule

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

Section 92C of the Act prescribes the methods under which arm's length price can be computed. Rule 10B of the Rules lays down the mechanism for computation of arm's length price under I.T.A Nos. 2005 & 2006/Ahd/2025 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 12 DCIT vs. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd. different methods. As per rule

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

6. In fact, Coordinate Bench under similar circumstances had examined the effect of omission of sub-section (9) to section 10B of the Act with effect from 1-4-2004 by Finance Act, 2003 and held that there was no saving clause or provision introduced by way of amendment by omitting sub-section (9) of section

MASTEK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANG4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

6. The Revenue’s next substantive ground is that the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in reducing upward adjustment on fee for performance guarantee from 2% to 0.11% as proposed in the transfer pricing officer’s order and accepted in assessment order. Learned authorised representative at this stage informs us that the assessee

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MASTEK LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

6. The Revenue’s next substantive ground is that the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in reducing upward adjustment on fee for performance guarantee from 2% to 0.11% as proposed in the transfer pricing officer’s order and accepted in assessment order. Learned authorised representative at this stage informs us that the assessee

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MASTEK LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

6. The Revenue’s next substantive ground is that the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in reducing upward adjustment on fee for performance guarantee from 2% to 0.11% as proposed in the transfer pricing officer’s order and accepted in assessment order. Learned authorised representative at this stage informs us that the assessee

MASTEK LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD) - 1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

6. The Revenue’s next substantive ground is that the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in reducing upward adjustment on fee for performance guarantee from 2% to 0.11% as proposed in the transfer pricing officer’s order and accepted in assessment order. Learned authorised representative at this stage informs us that the assessee

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 Study Report [“TPSR”]. On perusal of TPSR, the Ld. TPO observed that the assessee has benchmarked international transactions according to the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [“CUP method”]. The Ld. TPO found the CUP method in order and accepted the same. Hence there was no dispute between the assessee and Ld. TPO / AO in so far adoption

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 Study Report [“TPSR”]. On perusal of TPSR, the Ld. TPO observed that the assessee has benchmarked international transactions according to the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [“CUP method”]. The Ld. TPO found the CUP method in order and accepted the same. Hence there was no dispute between the assessee and Ld. TPO / AO in so far adoption

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

section 92CA(1) of the Act on account of determination of arm's length price of international transaction entered into by the assessee. 19. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO while relying upon his own decision for the AY 2003-04. 20. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

transfer pricing adjustment, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under the Act. 4. On the facts

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

transfer pricing adjustment, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under the Act. 4. On the facts

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

transfer pricing adjustment, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under the Act. 4. On the facts

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

transfer pricing adjustment, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under the Act. 4. On the facts

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest 15,18,41,720 on advances to AEs 2 Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill 2,27,92,50,000 3 Disallowance due to Allocation of Common 10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D 8,70,747 5 Disallowance of Weighted Deduction under