INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

1(ii) - Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Notional Interest on Outstanding Receivables from AEs – Rs.14,64,47,827/-. 9. The next issue arising for our consideration pertains to the transfer pricing adjustment made by imputing notional interest on delayed realization of export proceeds from AEs, resulting in an addition of Rs.14,64,47,827/-. 10. During the year under consideration

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

1(ii) - Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Notional Interest on Outstanding Receivables from AEs – Rs.14,64,47,827/-. 9. The next issue arising for our consideration pertains to the transfer pricing adjustment made by imputing notional interest on delayed realization of export proceeds from AEs, resulting in an addition of Rs.14,64,47,827/-. 10. During the year under consideration

THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

section 80-IC of the Act. Both the parties before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them. 45. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The controversy in the case on hand relates whether the donation paid by the assessee under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

section 80-IC of the Act. Both the parties before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them. 45. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The controversy in the case on hand relates whether the donation paid by the assessee under section

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

section 80-IC of the Act. Both the parties before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them. 45. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The controversy in the case on hand relates whether the donation paid by the assessee under section

THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

section 80-IC of the Act. Both the parties before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them. 45. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The controversy in the case on hand relates whether the donation paid by the assessee under section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. ASTRAL PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES,, BARODA

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax From The Payments Made To M/S. Urja International, Usa Which Proves That The

iv) CIT Vs Eon Technology (P) Ltd. (2012) 246 CTR 40 (Delhi) (High Court) (v) Southern Borewells Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 378 (HC-Kerala) (vi) ITO Vs Trident Exports [2014] 44 taxmann.com 297 (Chennai - Trib.) (vii) CIT Vs Model Exims (2014) 42 taxmann.com 446 (Allahabad) 33.4. Considering the various judicial precedents as mentioned above, the Assessing Officer

MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

iv) A non-obstante provision regarding the nature of a transfer. If an act, arrangement, transaction etc. constitutes a transfer as defined in the section it would be so notwithstanding the transfer of rights having been categorised as being effected or dependent upon or flowing from the transfer of a share or shares of a company registered or incorporated outside

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. ASTRAL PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES,, BARODA

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax

iv) CIT Vs Eon Technology (P) Ltd. (2012) 246 CTR 40 (Delhi) (High Court) (v) Southern Borewells Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 378 (HC-Kerala) (vi) ITO Vs Trident Exports [2014] 44 taxmann.com 297 (Chennai - Trib.) (vii) CIT Vs Model Exims (2014) 42 taxmann.com 446 (Allahabad) 33.4. Considering the various judicial precedents as mentioned above, the Assessing Officer

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

iv) in respect of capital expenditure during the year. 9.4 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. DRP grossly erred in not directing the AO to allow depreciation u/s 32(1) on capital R&D assets. 10. Re: Non-adjudication of claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) on cost of assets given to employees Rs. 1

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Transfer Pricing regulations. Further, we observe that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity

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

1,60,21,796 material/packing material TOTAL 17,006,802,321 IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 5.1. The assessee during the assessment proceeding filed its transfer pricing study report treating its AE’s as tested party. The assessee further justifies its stand treating the AE’s as tested party

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

1,60,21,796 material/packing material TOTAL 17,006,802,321 IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 5.1. The assessee during the assessment proceeding filed its transfer pricing study report treating its AE’s as tested party. The assessee further justifies its stand treating the AE’s as tested party

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

1, 2 and 3: 5. By means of these Grounds, the revenue has challenged that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,85,58,403/- made by Ld. AO on account of transfer pricing adjustment without properly appreciating the facts of case and material on record, by wrongly rejecting CUP method and accepting TNMM