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

disallowing the adjustment concerning loss on contribution to US regulatory condition, R&D expenses and some other expenses which were treated by the assessee as non-operating expenses but the TPO treated them as operating expenses. Thus the TPO determined the PLI of the assessee at - 5.35%. 5.21. In view of the above facts, the TPO issued

M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1582/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Venus Infrastructure & D.C.I.T.,(Osd) Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-8, 801-802, Broadway Business Ahmedabad. Centre, Opp. Mayor’S Bungalow, Law Garden Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aahcs6254J

disallowance of claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act is not sustainable on the technical ground that the return of income for A.Y. 2012-13, filed by the appellant company on 28.11.2012, was beyond the due date for filing the return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is held that the return

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by invoking Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 38. The above grievance is not pressed by the assessee, on account of smallness of amount, and is dismissed as such. 39. Ground no. 2 is dismissed. 40. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by invoking Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 38. The above grievance is not pressed by the assessee, on account of smallness of amount, and is dismissed as such. 39. Ground no. 2 is dismissed. 40. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by invoking Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 38. The above grievance is not pressed by the assessee, on account of smallness of amount, and is dismissed as such. 39. Ground no. 2 is dismissed. 40. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance

THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C & 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the upward adjustment of Rs 1,12,25,575/- made by the TPO on benchmarking of Royalty payments