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

price and the issue price is a benefit to employees. Therefore, deferred employee compensation is a component of employee remuneration and actual loss to the company. Therefore, this is only a mode of discharging the liability of employees, and it is an ascertained liability. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the amount debited/amortized in ITR of earlier years had been correctly

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

prices from 80IB/IC units to the company. xi. Why not after excluding other income like royalty, technological r-license income, export incentives, misc. Income, and sundries etc. which are not eligible for 80IB/IC deduction, the determination of eligible profits is done, xii. The company does trading activity also. Why the trading profit should not be excluded for determining eligible income

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

assessment year in question is less than the quantum of deduction under section 80IA of the Act, is similar to that of the case before us. Further contentions of the assessee that income from other sources under the head “income from other sources” in addition to business income have to be considered for the purpose of allowing deduction

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148 for reopening of such assessment; reopening of assessee's assessment was bad in law. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, where the Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make additions in the hands on account of undisclosed investments on the basis of documents found during

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148 for reopening of such assessment; reopening of assessee's assessment was bad in law. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, where the Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make additions in the hands on account of undisclosed investments on the basis of documents found during

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148 for reopening of such assessment; reopening of assessee's assessment was bad in law. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, where the Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make additions in the hands on account of undisclosed investments on the basis of documents found during

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148 for reopening of such assessment; reopening of assessee's assessment was bad in law. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, where the Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make additions in the hands on account of undisclosed investments on the basis of documents found during

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148 for reopening of such assessment; reopening of assessee's assessment was bad in law. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, where the Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make additions in the hands on account of undisclosed investments on the basis of documents found during

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

transfer pricing provisions for the transactions as discussed above. Likewise, there was no international transaction with ATTCO in the year under consideration. Accordingly the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act was 30th September 2012. As such, the assessee has contravened the provisions of section 80AC of the Act and therefore

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

Block-D, Makarba, S.G. Highway, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380051 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAACH9142D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ankit Sahni, ARs Respondent by: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT DR 02.07.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 26.09.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against

TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, BARODA CIR- 4,, BARODA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Price in respect of the transactions entered into by the assessee with its associate enterprises, namely, RCS Centre Corp. Therefore, the order of ld. CIT(A) is upheld, and the grounds raised by the assessee as well as by the revenue on this issue are rejected. In view of the above we do not any reason to interfere

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing analysis is to compute the income arising from an international transaction, having regard to its arm's length price. The 'international transaction' in question, relates to import of raw materials by the assessee from its associated enterprises. Therefore, what is expected of the TPO is to consider the transactions of import of raw materials by the assessee from

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing analysis is to compute the income arising from an international transaction, having regard to its arm's length price. The 'international transaction' in question, relates to import of raw materials by the assessee from its associated enterprises. Therefore, what is expected of the TPO is to consider the transactions of import of raw materials by the assessee from

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing analysis is to compute the income arising from an international transaction, having regard to its arm's length price. The 'international transaction' in question, relates to import of raw materials by the assessee from its associated enterprises. Therefore, what is expected of the TPO is to consider the transactions of import of raw materials by the assessee from

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing analysis is to compute the income arising from an international transaction, having regard to its arm's length price. The 'international transaction' in question, relates to import of raw materials by the assessee from its associated enterprises. Therefore, what is expected of the TPO is to consider the transactions of import of raw materials by the assessee from

BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

block of asset being furniture and fittings, thus qualified depreciation at the rate of 10%. Having consistently allowed the depreciation at the rate of 15% on this opening WDV of office equipments and with no change in facts and circumstances coming to the notice of the Revenue, we hold that the Revenue cannot now change its view on the issue

HAGGLUNDS DRIVES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( NOW MERGED IN BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

block of asset being furniture and fittings, thus qualified depreciation at the rate of 10%. Having consistently allowed the depreciation at the rate of 15% on this opening WDV of office equipments and with no change in facts and circumstances coming to the notice of the Revenue, we hold that the Revenue cannot now change its view on the issue

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

Transfer Pricing. (2) That the ld.ClT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,38,592/- made on account of prior period expenses. (3) That the I d.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,28,46,340/- made on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 4,, BARODA vs. TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result, we hereby confirm the findings of ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2779/Ahd/2012 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2799/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2006-07)

Transfer Pricing Officer in considering the arm's length price @10% of the expenses recovered is not only adhoc but it also does not conform to any of the methods prescribed in section 92C(1) of the Act. On this count itself, the action of the TPO is suspect, even if, it is to be understood that the impugned transaction