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

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

6 Formulation Y.E [71,394,3881 100 NIL Plant- % Baddi 31.03.2010 . • Above table clearly evidences that assessee has incurred losses in its NIUs which are eligible for deduction @100% (viz. Baddi) and also claimed deduction on NIU which are eligible for deduction @30% (i.e. Goa). The Auditor while computing the above deduction in Form No. lOCCB has made the following

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of order dated 20 July 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -1, Ahmedabad ('the learned AO') under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, on the grounds v. as set out herein: The following grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of order dated 20 July 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -1, Ahmedabad ('the learned AO') under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, on the grounds v. as set out herein: The following grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of order dated 20 July 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -1, Ahmedabad ('the learned AO') under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, on the grounds v. as set out herein: The following grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of order dated 20 July 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -1, Ahmedabad ('the learned AO') under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, on the grounds v. as set out herein: The following grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another

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

Appeal is dismissed

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2005-06 . 2. Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee reads as under: 1 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made by AO of Rs. 2,70,80,490/- on account of adjustments

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

Transfer Pricing Officer who has wrongly charged an additional mark up of 25 basis points on account of currency risks without considering the factual background of the transaction. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer

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

Transfer Pricing Officer who has wrongly charged an additional mark up of 25 basis points on account of currency risks without considering the factual background of the transaction. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer

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

Transfer Pricing Officer who has wrongly charged an additional mark up of 25 basis points on account of currency risks without considering the factual background of the transaction. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer

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

Transfer Pricing Officer who has wrongly charged an additional mark up of 25 basis points on account of currency risks without considering the factual background of the transaction. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer

LONSEN KIRI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Transfer Pricing study report. Similarly, in respect of Reactive Blue 250, the appellant had also not considered and differentiated between the geographical market. Therefore, the appellant should not raise objection of this point of time now. Regarding the objection taken by the appellant regarding difference in quantity, it is noted that the appellant has contended that the quantities in bulk

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

6%, which was thus 158 points above the LIBOR rate, was held to be an arms length price. In view of these discussions, it cannot be said that the advance to subsidiary, at 247 basis points above the LIBOR, is not at an arms length price. In any event, once DRP itself states that the Indian banks are charging 250

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

6%, which was thus 158 points above the LIBOR rate, was held to be an arms length price. In view of these discussions, it cannot be said that the advance to subsidiary, at 247 basis points above the LIBOR, is not at an arms length price. In any event, once DRP itself states that the Indian banks are charging 250

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing adjustment with the benefit derived by the assessee, the interest cost appears to be negligible. The amount of interest cost stands at " 26,19,740/- whereas the amount of gross receipt generated by the assessee ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 stands at USD 1,556,230 which is far more than the interest expenses after

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing adjustment with the benefit derived by the assessee, the interest cost appears to be negligible. The amount of interest cost stands at " 26,19,740/- whereas the amount of gross receipt generated by the assessee ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 stands at USD 1,556,230 which is far more than the interest expenses after

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing adjustment with the benefit derived by the assessee, the interest cost appears to be negligible. The amount of interest cost stands at " 26,19,740/- whereas the amount of gross receipt generated by the assessee ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 stands at USD 1,556,230 which is far more than the interest expenses after

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing adjustment with the benefit derived by the assessee, the interest cost appears to be negligible. The amount of interest cost stands at " 26,19,740/- whereas the amount of gross receipt generated by the assessee ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 stands at USD 1,556,230 which is far more than the interest expenses after

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing adjustment with the benefit derived by the assessee, the interest cost appears to be negligible. The amount of interest cost stands at " 26,19,740/- whereas the amount of gross receipt generated by the assessee ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 stands at USD 1,556,230 which is far more than the interest expenses after