ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH (INDIA) LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) LLP),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Lid. AD/ Ld. TPO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, erred in disregarding the fact that the Appellant has duly complied with the provisions of Section 92C(1) and 92C(2) of the Act and thus the Ld. TPO earned in disregarding the transfer pricing

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)

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely:- comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,- (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction

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

transfer pricing adjustment without satisfying the\nconditions stipulated in Explanation 7 to section 271(l)(c) of the Act.\n11. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the\nlearned AO in levying penalty without appreciating the fact that the Arm's Length Price\n(\"ALP\") was computed by the Appellant in good

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

3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction U/s 35(2AB) on the basis of expense claim made by the assessee in the ROI instead of granting deduction on the amount approved by DSIR in Form 3CL 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction U/s 35(2AB) on the basis of expense claim made by the assessee in the ROI instead of granting deduction on the amount approved by DSIR in Form 3CL 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction U/s 35(2AB) on the basis of expense claim made by the assessee in the ROI instead of granting deduction on the amount approved by DSIR in Form 3CL 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction U/s 35(2AB) on the basis of expense claim made by the assessee in the ROI instead of granting deduction on the amount approved by DSIR in Form 3CL 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction U/s 35(2AB) on the basis of expense claim made by the assessee in the ROI instead of granting deduction on the amount approved by DSIR in Form 3CL 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deduction U/s 35(2AB) on the basis of expense claim made by the assessee in the ROI instead of granting deduction on the amount approved by DSIR in Form 3CL 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

BUNDY INDIA LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, Ground Number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1403/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Bundy India Limited The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Plot No.2, Circle-1(1) V/S. Gidc Industrial Estate, Baroda Makarpura Vadodaria - 390 010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacb 3039 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shree Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

transfer pricing adjustments sustained by the lower authorities aggregating to Rs. 1,77,85,368/- were unwarranted since the preconditions Bundy India Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2009-10 for invoking section 92C(3

HAZIRA PORT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CICLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the above terms

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing issues. While making the said downward adjustment, the Learned AO/TPO/DRP have erred in: i. Not accepting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant in the manner as contemplated under the Act and Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). ii. Not respecting the provisions of section 92C(3

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.2,67,13,481/-. - Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 for Rs.3,987/-, resulting in the corresponding addition to the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. - Disallowance of Rs.46,07,317/- under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act for payments made

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

transfer pricing legislation does not support the plea of the assessee. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any specific legal provision enabling such a corresponding deduction or demonstrate, or even remotely suggest, the line of demarcation as visualized by the learned counsel. As regards the reference to second proviso to Section 92C(4) made by the learned

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

transfer pricing legislation does not support the plea of the assessee. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any specific legal provision enabling such a corresponding deduction or demonstrate, or even remotely suggest, the line of demarcation as visualized by the learned counsel. As regards the reference to second proviso to Section 92C(4) made by the learned

BUNDY INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

92C(3) read with section 92CA(3) of the Act were satisfied. 4. Manufacturing segment (Adjustment of Rs.22,929,998) 4.1 The AO/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in holding that the international transaction of import of raw material by the Appellant from the associated enterprises ('AEs') in not at arm's length and rejecting transfer pricing

D S TRADING,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

92C of the Act read with Rule 10C of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). 4. During the assessment proceedings, a reference under Section 92CA(1) of the Act had been made by the Assessing Officer to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer -1, Ahmedabad. The Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') proposed following adjustment in his order

SKAPS INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by affirming TPO’s action of rejecting most appropriate method (MAM) adopted by the assessee while totally ignoring the submissions of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the rejection of CUP method for benchmarking purchase transaction was not justified on the part