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)

4. In respect of the transfer pricing adjustment, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel against the draft order. The DRP, after detailed consideration, rejected the objections specifically those relating to application of turnover filter, functional comparability of selected companies, and claim for risk or economic adjustments. The DRP upheld the findings of the TPO in entirety

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 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

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

VISHNUBHAI MAFATBHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2849/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

transfer of the same property for the purpose of claim of deduction under s.54B of the Act. The learned AR next pointed out that a part of the agricultural land was purchased in July 2014 concerning AY 2015-16 and therefore would not be subject matter of assessment for AY 2014-15. 9. The learned DR for the Revenue relied

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material