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

Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'); 2.2 not accepting the overseas Associated Enterprises ('AEs') as the tested party, being the least complex of the transacting entities and instead considering the appellant as the tested party, thus violating the basic principles

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

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

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

transfer pricing authorities to contend that this loan should be treated as a high risk loan on which high interest rate should be charged even within the range of interest rates charged by the Indian banks generally. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the grievance of the assessee and direct

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

transfer pricing authorities to contend that this loan should be treated as a high risk loan on which high interest rate should be charged even within the range of interest rates charged by the Indian banks generally. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the grievance of the assessee and direct

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.

price adjustment can be made". However, the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad is in contradiction with the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Limited (2015) 58 taxmann.com 254 (Bombay). 2.16 In the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Limited, 34 Taxmann.com 19 (Mumbai Trib), the Hon'ble ITAT went into this issue

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.

price adjustment can be made". However, the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad is in contradiction with the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Limited (2015) 58 taxmann.com 254 (Bombay). 2.16 In the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Limited, 34 Taxmann.com 19 (Mumbai Trib), the Hon'ble ITAT went into this issue

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.

price adjustment can be made". However, the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad is in contradiction with the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Limited (2015) 58 taxmann.com 254 (Bombay). 2.16 In the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Limited, 34 Taxmann.com 19 (Mumbai Trib), the Hon'ble ITAT went into this issue

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.

price adjustment can be made". However, the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad is in contradiction with the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Limited (2015) 58 taxmann.com 254 (Bombay). 2.16 In the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Limited, 34 Taxmann.com 19 (Mumbai Trib), the Hon'ble ITAT went into this issue

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

80G(Rs.6,38,77,000 @ 50% & Rs.25,00,000 @100%) and 80GGB (Fs.1,45.00,000/-) of the Income tax Act, 1961 even though there is no profit left out after deducting of 100% of profit of eligible unit. " 11. "that the Id. C1T (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A r. w. rule

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

80G(Rs.6,38,77,000 @ 50% & Rs.25,00,000 @100%) and 80GGB (Fs.1,45.00,000/-) of the Income tax Act, 1961 even though there is no profit left out after deducting of 100% of profit of eligible unit. " 11. "that the Id. C1T (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A r. w. rule

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 others A.Y.2013-14 43 account of benchmarking of loan to AE. Thus, the ground of the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Capital Infusion. 55. The TPO found that the assessee during the year has made payment of share application money to the following AEs: S. Name of AE Amount in Rs. Date of Date of share

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

80G of Rs. 9,92,000/- and deduction u/s. 80IA of Rs. 6,26,51,076/-, the total eligible deduction thus amounting to Rs. 6,36,43,076/- which was restricted to the extent of gross total income, resulting in Nil income assessed. Computation of the assessed income at Para 10 of the order was pointed

ADITYA MEDISALES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Aditya Medisales Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 402, 4Th Floor, R.K. Centre Vs Vadodara. Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabca 9317 J Assessment Year :2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Aditya Medisales Ltd. Vadodara. Vs 402, 4Th Floor, R.K. Centre Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabca 9317 J

80G of Rs.75,500/-. The assessee also returned a long term capital loss of Rs.41,08,131/- and the book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act 1961 was shown at Rs.12,78,45,729/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under sections 143[2] and 142[1] were issued from time

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. ADITYA MEDISALES LIMITED,, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Aditya Medisales Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 402, 4Th Floor, R.K. Centre Vs Vadodara. Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabca 9317 J Assessment Year :2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Aditya Medisales Ltd. Vadodara. Vs 402, 4Th Floor, R.K. Centre Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabca 9317 J

80G of Rs.75,500/-. The assessee also returned a long term capital loss of Rs.41,08,131/- and the book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act 1961 was shown at Rs.12,78,45,729/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under sections 143[2] and 142[1] were issued from time

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee