Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

26 DTR 420Reported decision2009#17428 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi vs. Ms Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 2176/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Vs. Ms Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 18 N-24-N34, S-24-S-34, Air Delhi Cargo Logistics Centre-Ii, Opposite Gate 6 Cargo Terminal Igi Airport, South West, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aapcs9575E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. K. M. Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Right In Not Sustaining The Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed On Account Of Employee

Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

…of Tax [(2004) 85 TTJ10491 > Murugappa Management Services Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 451 (Chennai - Trib.) 11. it was brought to our notice that the order relied by the ld, PCIT in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2009) 124 TTJ 771: (2009) 26 DTR 420 stands considered by Special Bench wherein the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT has been examined in the case of Biocon Limited supra) which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Karnataka gh Court and hence the order relied upon by the Id. PCIT is no ore good law. Hence, we hold that the directions given in the der u/s 263 are not valid.…

Amee Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 680/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 680/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. The Acit (Osd), Ltd., Vs. Corporate Range -1, Zenith Building, 6Th Floor, Chennai Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan : Aaacf 3204C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. K.Amulya, Ca & Ms. V. Rajeswari, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai In Ita No.479/16-17/Cit(A)-4/A.Y.2014-15 Dated 06.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit(Osd), Corporate Range-1, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Cost Incurred In Connection With Off The Shelf Software Products Treating The Same As Royalty Under The Provisions Of The Act Read With Relevant Treaties. For This, Assessee Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 4 But The Relevant Ground Is Ground No.2, Which Reads As Under:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Non-Consideration Of The Fact That The Said Expenditure Merely Represents Cost To Cost Reimbursement Of Expenditure Incurred On Behalf Of The Appellant By Afwg Overseas Entities & Therefore, No Income Arises In The Hands Of Afwg Entities Necessitating The Obligation To Withhold Taxes On The Part Of The Appellant Under The Provisions Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Ms. K.Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…t price only results in short receipt of share premium does not arise at all. Accordingly, the case law relied upon by the lower authorities on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs ACIT reported in 26 DTR 420 is not applicable in the instant case. We find that the expenses in connection with the issue of shares of Caterpillar Inc. U.S.A. under ESOP scheme by the assessee to the employees is an ascertained liability and more in the nature of welfare measures for the employees. Accordingly the compensation paid in the form of price differentials is squar…

Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (26 DTR 420) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax