IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5973 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6130 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SAURABH SOPARKAR SENIOR ADVOCATE MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR RUTVIJ R PATEL(10615) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 06/01/2026 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. With consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing.

RULE. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Rutvij R. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1.

2. Since common issue is involved in both the writ petitions, having common parties, the same are decided by this common judgment and order. The captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.5973 of 2025 is taken as a lead matter and the facts are borrowed from it.

BRIEF FACTS :

3. By way of present writ petitions, the petitioner – Company has assailed the impugned Assessment Order dated 26.03.2025 and 27.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 143(3) read with Sections 263 and 144 B of the Income Tax, 1961 (for short ‘ the IT Act’)

for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

4. The facts of the case is that the petitioner is a pharmaceutical Company engaged in the business of marketing, trading and exporting of pharmaceutical products. The petitioner filed its original return of income on 30.11.2018 declaring loss of Rs.2248,16,32,703/- and thereafter revised return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 31.03.2019 declaring a loss of Rs.1506,40,88,610/-. The case of the petitioner- company was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (for short “CASS”) and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 came to be issued on 23.09.2019. The case of the petitioner-company was thereafter transferred to the Faceless Assessing Officer on 15.10.2020. Since the reasons for scrutiny included international transactions arising out of business restructuring and high- risk international transactions (transfer pricing risk parameters), the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (for short “TPO”) by respondent No.1 on 29.01.2021. The TPO, after considering the submissions of the petitioner, passed an order under Section 92CA(3) of the IT Act on 26.07.2021 making an upward adjustment of Rs.94,88,151/-.

4.1 Thereafter, the respondent No.2 continued the assessment proceedings and issued a draft assessment order under Section 144C of the IT Act on 20.09.2021. The petitioner did not approach the Dispute Resolution Panel and consequently, a final assessment order came to be passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 144C(3) and 144B of the IT Act on 29.10.2021, assessing the total income of the petitioner at a loss of Rs.532,43,67,584/- and book loss of Rs.303,73,10,617/-. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara (for short “PCIT”) had issued a notice under Section 263 of the IT Act on 18.01.2024, holding that the assessment order for A.Y. 2018-19 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 read with Explanation-2 thereof. The petitioner filed a detailed reply on 12.02.2024 objecting to the proceedings under Section 263 of the IT Act. However, disregarding the objections, the PCIT passed an order dated 24.03.20