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

prices from 80IB/IC units to the company. xi. Why not after excluding other income like royalty, technological r-license income, export incentives, misc. Income, and sundries etc. which are not eligible for 80IB/IC deduction, the determination of eligible profits is done, xii. The company does trading activity also. Why the trading profit should not be excluded for determining eligible income

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 provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

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 provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

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 provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

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 provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

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

transfer pricing provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

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 provisions is required to be made with respect to the interest free loans and advances by the assessee to its associated enterprises in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground

VRAJ CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,GNR RANGE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

transfer is in violation of provisions of clause (e) and (f) to section 801B(10) of the Act However, as has been rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant the said provisions has been brought into statute by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1-4-2010, Since the present year under appeal

THE ITO, WARD-4,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. VRAJ CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

transfer is in violation of provisions of clause (e) and (f) to section 801B(10) of the Act However, as has been rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant the said provisions has been brought into statute by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1-4-2010, Since the present year under appeal

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

10) in respect of alleged price difference Rs.1,25,288/- on purchase from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (SPIL) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred m upholding the invoking of the provisions of S.80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) and thereby upholding the disallowance of Rs.1,25,288/- on account

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

price (ALP) of the international transaction as Nil. 7.1 The Ld. AO/TPO endorsed that the PSC is a self-serving document but erred in not allowing the expenses which were restricted in PSC to 1% of the total contract cost on the ground that cost benefit analysis was not done. It is submitted that prescribing 1% of contract cost

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

price (ALP) of the international transaction as Nil. 7.1 The Ld. AO/TPO endorsed that the PSC is a self-serving document but erred in not allowing the expenses which were restricted in PSC to 1% of the total contract cost on the ground that cost benefit analysis was not done. It is submitted that prescribing 1% of contract cost

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

price (ALP) of the international transaction as Nil. 7.1 The Ld. AO/TPO endorsed that the PSC is a self-serving document but erred in not allowing the expenses which were restricted in PSC to 1% of the total contract cost on the ground that cost benefit analysis was not done. It is submitted that prescribing 1% of contract cost