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

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

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 12. The sub-Section (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from

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

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

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

147 basis points before the interest charged can be said to more than the arm's length price, and it is an old matter. It is, therefore, worth exploring whether, even within the limitations of somewhat sketchy information available on the facts of this case, the matter can be decided one way or the other rather than sending it back

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

147 basis points before the interest charged can be said to more than the arm's length price, and it is an old matter. It is, therefore, worth exploring whether, even within the limitations of somewhat sketchy information available on the facts of this case, the matter can be decided one way or the other rather than sending it back

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

transferred. It is pertinent to note that copy of PAN Card was supplied to the AO alongwith computation of income. Bank statements from where investment had been made but learned AO did not examine abovesaid documents rather learned AO made addition solely on the basis of the Investigation Wing Report. In support of its contention learned AR cited following decisions

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

transferred. It is pertinent to note that copy of PAN Card was supplied to the AO alongwith computation of income. Bank statements from where investment had been made but learned AO did not examine abovesaid documents rather learned AO made addition solely on the basis of the Investigation Wing Report. In support of its contention learned AR cited following decisions

THE DCITANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

147 of the Act has been held by us as invalid; therefore the appeal filed by the Revenue has no leg to stand. Therefore we dismiss the same as infructuous. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed Now coming to ITA No. 2641/AHD/2010 for the AY 2007-08 an appeal by the assessee. The assessee has raised

THE DCITANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

147 of the Act has been held by us as invalid; therefore the appeal filed by the Revenue has no leg to stand. Therefore we dismiss the same as infructuous. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed Now coming to ITA No. 2641/AHD/2010 for the AY 2007-08 an appeal by the assessee. The assessee has raised

JECHINS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED (IN LIQN.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13 with the following revised grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in holding that the return of income filed in the physical form

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

section 147 without appreciating that there is a mere change of opinion on issues which had akeady been considered in the assessment order framed u/s 143(3). 3. Re: Addition on account of transfer of Technology to Foreign Subsidiary- Rs. 45.35.30.353/-: 3.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred

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

transferred from Jurisdictional A.O. to Central Circle without obtaining the consent of the assessee U/s. 127 of the Act. Therefore, the order of A.O. is without Jurisdiction. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the proceedings of A.O. in re- opening the assessment U/s. 147. Though the assessment is based on incriminating material found during Search at Robin Goenka

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

transferred from Jurisdictional A.O. to Central Circle without obtaining the consent of the assessee U/s. 127 of the Act. Therefore, the order of A.O. is without Jurisdiction. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the proceedings of A.O. in re- opening the assessment U/s. 147. Though the assessment is based on incriminating material found during Search at Robin Goenka

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

transferred from Jurisdictional A.O. to Central Circle without obtaining the consent of the assessee U/s. 127 of the Act. Therefore, the order of A.O. is without Jurisdiction. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the proceedings of A.O. in re- opening the assessment U/s. 147. Though the assessment is based on incriminating material found during Search at Robin Goenka

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

transferred from Jurisdictional A.O. to Central Circle without obtaining the consent of the assessee U/s. 127 of the Act. Therefore, the order of A.O. is without Jurisdiction. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the proceedings of A.O. in re- opening the assessment U/s. 147. Though the assessment is based on incriminating material found during Search at Robin Goenka