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)

Section 92B of the Act between the assessee and its associate enterprise were given in Form 3ECB and the aggregate value of the international transactions mentioned therein was Rs.21,54,00,08,465/-. A reference u/s.92CA(1) of the Act was sent by the AO to the TPO to determine the Arm’s Length Price of the international transactions undertaken

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the view taken

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GHCL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the view taken

TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, BARODA CIR- 4,, BARODA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.6,66,56,120 should be deleted. Ground no. 2 2.1 The AO following the directions of the DRP has erred in law and in facts of the case in not allowing the deduction under section 10B of the Act of Rs. 7,14,80,242 as claimed by the Appellant in respect of the profits

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

163/- on which net profit of Rs.19,77,87,586/- was declared. The return of income was filed on 23.11.2012 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 11,67,17,728/-. The return was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 06.08.2013 which was duly served

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

163/- on which net profit of Rs.19,77,87,586/- was declared. The return of income was filed on 23.11.2012 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 11,67,17,728/-. The return was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 06.08.2013 which was duly served

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 271(1) of the Act. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO without appreciating that: .1 The addition made to the transfer price by adopting a diverse method (Profit split method) as against the one adopted by the Appellant (Transactional Net Margin Method) resulted due to difference of opinion

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 271(1) of the Act. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO without appreciating that: .1 The addition made to the transfer price by adopting a diverse method (Profit split method) as against the one adopted by the Appellant (Transactional Net Margin Method) resulted due to difference of opinion

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. HEUBACH COLOUR PVT. LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Price with AE. The AO, during the course of assessment proceeding observed that the assessee has paid sales commission to two parties i.e. Heubach GMBH and Darlington Enterprises Ltd. The AO observed that the Heubach GMBH is an Associated Enterprise, and both the parties are foreign parties. The AO observed that in the case of AE, sale commission

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. HEUBACH COLOUR PVT. LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Price with AE. The AO, during the course of assessment proceeding observed that the assessee has paid sales commission to two parties i.e. Heubach GMBH and Darlington Enterprises Ltd. The AO observed that the Heubach GMBH is an Associated Enterprise, and both the parties are foreign parties. The AO observed that in the case of AE, sale commission

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

price of shares had been credited in the respective accounts. The CIT(A) follows special bench decision of the tribunal (2010) 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bom.) DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia as upheld in (2012) 342 ITR 285 (Bom.) CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia that value of the share transacted by a broker-assessee on behalf of the concerned client

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

price of shares had been credited in the respective accounts. The CIT(A) follows special bench decision of the tribunal (2010) 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bom.) DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia as upheld in (2012) 342 ITR 285 (Bom.) CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia that value of the share transacted by a broker-assessee on behalf of the concerned client

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

price of shares had been credited in the respective accounts. The CIT(A) follows special bench decision of the tribunal (2010) 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bom.) DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia as upheld in (2012) 342 ITR 285 (Bom.) CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia that value of the share transacted by a broker-assessee on behalf of the concerned client

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

transferred to the assessee. In that view of the matter, for the purpose of income derived from such property, the assessee would be the owner of the land for the purpose of the said Act. It is true that the title in the land had not yet passed on to the assessee. It is equally true that such title would