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

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

Transfer Pricing documentation maintained by it in terms of Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 50D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("Rules"): By rejecting (he approach adopted by the Appellant of undertaking a regional benchmarking in the TP report which is in line with the globally accepted TP principles and also accepted by CBDT

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

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 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 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

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

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

9. In ground no. 2, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO for the wrong claim made by the assessee u/s 80G in its return of income without appreciating the fact that the AO has correctly allowed the eligible donations of Rs.2

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

9. In ground no. 2, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO for the wrong claim made by the assessee u/s 80G in its return of income without appreciating the fact that the AO has correctly allowed the eligible donations of Rs.2

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

9. On the other hand the Ld. DR before us submitted as under: ITA Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (by assessee) and ITA No.1689/Ahd/2015 (by revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2008-09 19 “1. Diversion of Profits on transfer of Technology to Caraco through Sun Global BVI: 1.1 The assessee company had transferred the technology to Caraco by Sun Global

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions

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

40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions

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

40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions

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

40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions

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

40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions

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

40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that provided in section 36(1)(iv) and (v) and the impugned contribution was not covered by section 36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

9) equally prohibits deduction in respect of contribution to any fund or trust etc. for any purpose other than that provided in section 36(1)(iv) and (v) and the impugned contribution was not covered by section 36(1 )(iv) and (v). 2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case