IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt

DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

Transfer Pricing adjustment warranted. (iii) The Ld. CIT (A)/TPO/AO ought to have accepted the facts that issuance of corporate guarantees by assessee to lender bank for its AE, does not involve any costs to the assessee, does not have any bearing on profits, income, losses 4 or assets of assessee hence outside the ambit of expression 'international transaction

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

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

Transfer Pricing Officer to verify whether there was any involvement of the Assessee in the direct sales 21 ITA No.480/Ahd/2011 & ITA No.3361/Ahd/2010 – India Medtronic Private limited. made by the AE in India. Similar view was expressed by the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessment years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2007-08. Following the consistent view of the Tribunal

M/S. MERCATOR LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

transfer pricing study report, submissions, the comparables and passed the order U/sec92CA of the Act on 30.01.2014 with the T.P adjustments as under: S.No Nature of TP adjustment Amount 1 Arm’s Length interest on loan Advanced 34,35,01,289 to the AEs 2 Arm’s Length Guarantee Fee on 8,10,96,267 corporate guarantee extended

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing legislation was amended, to bring greater clarity on the issue and as a measure of abundant caution, and section 247 (7.1), granting specific exemption

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing legislation was amended, to bring greater clarity on the issue and as a measure of abundant caution, and section 247 (7.1), granting specific exemption

ACCC 30, MUMBAI vs. UNITED SHIPPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing officer rejected benchmarking made by the assessee and submitted that as assessee is exposed itself to a greater risk compared to the bank and therefore the rate of 4.75% on the value of bank guarantee is an appropriate benchmarking of the transaction. Accordingly he determined arm’s-length guarantee fee of ₹ 641,250/-. As assessee has already charged

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment. In addition the Assessing Officer also proposed other additions/disallowances as per the provisions of the Act. 3.2. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. On 22/12/2015, the DRP disposed off the objections granting partial relief to the Assessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer should be restored. 43. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Insofar as the contention of learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee that provision of guarantee is not an international transaction as per section 92B of the Act, we are unable