GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Transfer Pricing Officer in Page–37 of his order submitted, assessee also provides high end information technology enabled services, hence, assessee’s objections should not be accepted. 67. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. We have noted that the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in Symphony Marketing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

20,07,600\n2.2. The learned AO erred in law in not following the directions of the\nHon'ble DRP to verify and allow the claim of the Appellant with respect to\npayment made to Kone and the tax deducted at source (\"TDS\") applicable\nthereon.\n2.2.1. The learned AO, even after being so directed by the Hon'ble DRP,\nerroneously

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel–I (DRP), Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment years 2009–10 and 2010–11. ITA no.1671/Mum./2014 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2009–10 2. Shri P.J. Pardiwala, learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that grounds

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Firmenich Aromatics (India) Vs Acit-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9Th Floor, Arena Space, Cts 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. Pan : Aaacf1621M Appellant Respondednt

Transfer Pricing (*TP') adjustment in relation to export of finished goods 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/TPO in determining the Arms' Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction of export of finished goods at Rs. 10,35,77,048 instead

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

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

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

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

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

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

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

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

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

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

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

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

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

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

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

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

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

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

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

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

J.P MORGAN ADVISORS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel–III (DRP), Mumbai. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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

20 method. Rather, in our view, the fact-situation clearly points to the contrary inasmuch as the assessee had fully explained its position in the course of proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer and no justifiable fault has been pointed out by the Transfer Pricing Officer; and, even before us the same position continues on behalf of the Revenue. Under

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.

20 September 2022 and Hon'ble Ahmadabad Tribunal in case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (ITA No. 710/Ahd/2019) dated 9 September 2022 Thus, considering the aforesaid, it is clear that the assessment order passed by Ld. AO on 2 April 2014 is time barred as per Section 153 of the Act and needs to be quashed 9. We found that

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

transfer pricing provisions and the same therefore ought to be deleted. Interest under section 234B 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B amounting to Rs.3,48,71,080/- Interest under section 234C 20. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case