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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of Rs.1,54,77,374/- namely [a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to Associate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and [b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of Rs.1,54,77,374/- namely [a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to Associate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and [b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of Rs.1,54,77,374/- namely [a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to Associate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and [b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of Rs.1,54,77,374/- namely [a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to Associate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and [b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of Rs.1,54,77,374/- namely [a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to Associate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and [b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDIT.CIT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing ('TP') adjustment of FNR 309,156,218 in respect of payment for following intra-group services availed by the Appellant from Associated Enterprises ('AEs') viz. INEOS Styrolution Group GmbH ('INEOS Germany') and INEOS Styrolution APAC Pte. Ltd. ('INEOS Singapore): a. Global Head Office ('GHO') Charge availed from INEOS Germany : INR 97,670,814 b. Regional Head Office

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Order\nu/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of\nRs.1,54,77,374/- namely\n[a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to\nAssociate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and\n[b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-.\n2. 2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO's order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Order\nu/s.92CA(3) of the Act making an upward adjustment of\nRs.1,54,77,374/- namely\n\n[a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to\nAssociate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and\n[b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-.\n\n2. 2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge

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

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

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

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

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