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

Pricing ('TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'); 2.2 not accepting the overseas Associated Enterprises ('AEs') as the tested party, being the least complex of the transacting entities and instead considering the appellant as the tested party, thus violating the basic principles

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

transfer pricing. Thus, the blind aggregation / averaging can be fatal to all parties, the present assessee, any other taxpayer and even the revenue. Hence we should not entertain or encourage a belief that aggregation or averaging is allowed in all cases or in any case. In fact, it is the assessee who must prove or at least present the facts

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

transfer pricing. Thus, the blind aggregation / averaging can be fatal to all parties, the present assessee, any other taxpayer and even the revenue. Hence we should not entertain or encourage a belief that aggregation or averaging is allowed in all cases or in any case. In fact, it is the assessee who must prove or at least present the facts

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

transferred to its AE indirectly which amount to transfer of unique intangibles. Therefore, the profit split method will be appropriate method to determine ALP because assessee was not just manufacturer of the product. The AO/TPO further found that learned CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 while upholding the Profit Split Method taken the profit sharing ratio at 80:20 between

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

transferred to its AE indirectly which amount to transfer of unique intangibles. Therefore, the profit split method will be appropriate method to determine ALP because assessee was not just manufacturer of the product. The AO/TPO further found that learned CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 while upholding the Profit Split Method taken the profit sharing ratio at 80:20 between

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

transferred to its AE indirectly which amount to transfer of unique intangibles. Therefore, the profit split method will be appropriate method to determine ALP because assessee was not just manufacturer of the product. The AO/TPO further found that learned CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 while upholding the Profit Split Method taken the profit sharing ratio at 80:20 between

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

transferred to its AE indirectly which amount to transfer of unique intangibles. Therefore, the profit split method will be appropriate method to determine ALP because assessee was not just manufacturer of the product. The AO/TPO further found that learned CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 while upholding the Profit Split Method taken the profit sharing ratio at 80:20 between

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer, it was noted that the assessee had extended a corporate guarantee to the State Bank of India, Hong Kong branch, for acquisition of aircraft by its associated enterprises. It was explained by the assessee that the guarantee given by the assessee is a generic and non-explicit guarantee which binds the principal shareholders in general anyway

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer, it was noted that the assessee had extended a corporate guarantee to the State Bank of India, Hong Kong branch, for acquisition of aircraft by its associated enterprises. It was explained by the assessee that the guarantee given by the assessee is a generic and non-explicit guarantee which binds the principal shareholders in general anyway

M/S. SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

pricing adopted by the appellant and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant prior to such reference. 16. In any case the whole reference u/s.92CA(1) of the Act and consequent order are bad and illegal and hence deserves to be quashed. 17. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

pricing adopted by the appellant and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant prior to such reference. 16. In any case the whole reference u/s.92CA(1) of the Act and consequent order are bad and illegal and hence deserves to be quashed. 17. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case

THE DCIT(INTL. TAXN),,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHANDONG TIEJUN ELECTRIC POWER ENGG. COMPANY LTD., KUTCH

In the result, all three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri T. S. Kapoor

price construction contract with Adani Power Limited and Jhajar Power Limited The company started recognizing revenue in the financial year 2007-2008 as the outcome of the contract can be estimated reliably. Contract Revenue and expenses are recognized as revenue and expenses are recognized and expenses upto the stage of completion as on 31.03.2009 The management has estimated cost

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

145(1) is an enabling provision. It is intended to enable the Assessing Officer to make the correct Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 21 assessment which is the paramount object. It is not intended to confer any right or benefit upon an erring assessee. Thus, this section

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that, therefore, he had grossly erred not only in upholding the impugned disallowance on the ground that he found no fault with the Assessing Officer making the impugned disallowance in conformity with the aforesaid Instruction but further, in not deciding the appellant's ground using his own discretion in the matter

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that, therefore, he had grossly erred not only in upholding the impugned disallowance on the ground that he found no fault with the Assessing Officer making the impugned disallowance in conformity with the aforesaid Instruction but further, in not deciding the appellant's ground using his own discretion in the matter

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that, therefore, he had grossly erred not only in upholding the impugned disallowance on the ground that he found no fault with the Assessing Officer making the impugned disallowance in conformity with the aforesaid Instruction but further, in not deciding the appellant's ground using his own discretion in the matter

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that, therefore, he had grossly erred not only in upholding the impugned disallowance on the ground that he found no fault with the Assessing Officer making the impugned disallowance in conformity with the aforesaid Instruction but further, in not deciding the appellant's ground using his own discretion in the matter

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that, therefore, he had grossly erred not only in upholding the impugned disallowance on the ground that he found no fault with the Assessing Officer making the impugned disallowance in conformity with the aforesaid Instruction but further, in not deciding the appellant's ground using his own discretion in the matter

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that, therefore, he had grossly erred not only in upholding the impugned disallowance on the ground that he found no fault with the Assessing Officer making the impugned disallowance in conformity with the aforesaid Instruction but further, in not deciding the appellant's ground using his own discretion in the matter