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

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

ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH (INDIA) LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) LLP),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

153 taxmann.com 200 (SC). Based on these authorities, it was prayed that Magnasoft Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. also be excluded from the final list of comparables. As regards Interglobe Technology Quotient Ltd. ( a third comparable adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer Officer), the counsel submitted that it is functionally different as it operates as a distributor of “Travelport,” a global

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

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

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), ,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. HAZIRA LNG PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act that the PLL furnished, vide letter dated 1st February 2012, to the Transfer Pricing Officer. In this letter, PLL has, inter alia, stated that “each spot cargo transaction is distinct and are not comparable” and that PLL “is presently operating in one segment i.e. R-LNG”. The information so furnished

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

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has erred in law and on facts in exceeding the jurisdiction by passing the TP Order under Section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) beyond the mandatorily prescribed time limit as per Section 92CA(3A) read with Section 153

SMT. RASHIDABEN TAHER MORAWALA,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, INT.-TAXA., BARODA

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

price realized is less. Further the Valuation Officer has valued the same rate for the Terrace area sold. Therefore the valuation arrived by the Valuation Officer is not correct. The above objection was overruled by the Assessing Officer and determined the Long Term Capital Gain as Rs. 11,93,809/- and demanded tax thereon. I.T.A No. 1353/Ahd/2019

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing Officer 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reference made to TPO u/s 92CA(1) of the Act is bad in law as it violates the provisions of that section. Consequently, the draft assessment order and final assessment order are bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts

M/S. GULBRANDSEN TECHNOLOGES (INDIA) PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 160/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Gulbrandsen Additional/Joint/Deputy/ बनाम/ Technologies (India) Private Assistant Commissioner Of V/S. Limited Income Tax/Income-Tax 405, Synergy Square, Krishna Officer- Industrial Estate, Gowra, National Faceless Assessment Vadodara 390 016 Centre, Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 9006 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (") यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

section 144C(13) r.w.s 153 of the income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), thereby invalidating the entire assessment. Ground No. 3: The learned Transfer Pricing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account