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

29,47,184, referred to in ground 2 above.\n3.2. Without prejudice to 3.1 above, the relief should be granted in\n assessment year 2010-2011 wherein the Company has reversed\nprovision of Rs. 66,71,400 and offered the same for tax.\nThe Appellant therefore prays that it be appropriately allowed the\ndeduction under section 10A/10B

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

10 as provided by the Transfer Pricing Officer is also placed in the paper book filed before us. On a perusal of the said information, it is very much clear that the financial result for the financial year 2008– 09 corresponding to the financial year followed by the assessee was very much available with the Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, there

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

10% of the amount paid by the assessee on mere assumption and presumption and without any reasonable basis cannot be upheld. Unfortunately, the DRP has not examined the issue in proper perspective keeping in view the relevant statutory provisions. Having held so, it is necessary to deal with the Transfer Pricing Officer’s alternative bench marking under CUP method. Though

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

Pricing Provisions would not get attracted, it is noted that, TP provisions are applicable to computation of income under IT(TP)A No.720/MUM/2015 Page 10 of 29 section 28 to 43C, what comes in place of section 28 to 43C is Section 115VA, hence Transfer

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

10,000/- USD and a term loan of 75,000 USD in Solway Investment Limited. Similarly, identical permission was given for investment in Sunridge Management Limited. He placed both this permission in paper book at page no. 38 and 81 respectively. Accordingly, no interest could have been charged on the above sum. With respect to the other entities, he submitted

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

10,000/- USD and a term loan of 75,000 USD in Solway Investment Limited. Similarly, identical permission was given for investment in Sunridge Management Limited. He placed both this permission in paper book at page no. 38 and 81 respectively. Accordingly, no interest could have been charged on the above sum. With respect to the other entities, he submitted

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

10,000/- USD and a term loan of 75,000 USD in Solway Investment Limited. Similarly, identical permission was given for investment in Sunridge Management Limited. He placed both this permission in paper book at page no. 38 and 81 respectively. Accordingly, no interest could have been charged on the above sum. With respect to the other entities, he submitted

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

10,000/- USD and a term loan of 75,000 USD in Solway Investment Limited. Similarly, identical permission was given for investment in Sunridge Management Limited. He placed both this permission in paper book at page no. 38 and 81 respectively. Accordingly, no interest could have been charged on the above sum. With respect to the other entities, he submitted

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

10,000/- USD and a term loan of 75,000 USD in Solway Investment Limited. Similarly, identical permission was given for investment in Sunridge Management Limited. He placed both this permission in paper book at page no. 38 and 81 respectively. Accordingly, no interest could have been charged on the above sum. With respect to the other entities, he submitted

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

10,000/- USD and a term loan of 75,000 USD in Solway Investment Limited. Similarly, identical permission was given for investment in Sunridge Management Limited. He placed both this permission in paper book at page no. 38 and 81 respectively. Accordingly, no interest could have been charged on the above sum. With respect to the other entities, he submitted

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

10,000/- USD and a term loan of 75,000 USD in Solway Investment Limited. Similarly, identical permission was given for investment in Sunridge Management Limited. He placed both this permission in paper book at page no. 38 and 81 respectively. Accordingly, no interest could have been charged on the above sum. With respect to the other entities, he submitted

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

10,000/- USD and a term loan of 75,000 USD in Solway Investment Limited. Similarly, identical permission was given for investment in Sunridge Management Limited. He placed both this permission in paper book at page no. 38 and 81 respectively. Accordingly, no interest could have been charged on the above sum. With respect to the other entities, he submitted

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

10,000/- USD and a term loan of 75,000 USD in Solway Investment Limited. Similarly, identical permission was given for investment in Sunridge Management Limited. He placed both this permission in paper book at page no. 38 and 81 respectively. Accordingly, no interest could have been charged on the above sum. With respect to the other entities, he submitted

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

10,000/- USD and a term loan of 75,000 USD in Solway Investment Limited. Similarly, identical permission was given for investment in Sunridge Management Limited. He placed both this permission in paper book at page no. 38 and 81 respectively. Accordingly, no interest could have been charged on the above sum. With respect to the other entities, he submitted

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

29 J.P. Morgan Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. dealing with the issue relating to rejection of the company as a comparable on identical reasoning held that the ratio of 75% fixed by the Transfer Pricing Officer is not something which is scientifically proven. The Bench held that the company cannot be excluded for such a minuscule difference, if, it is otherwise

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.

29 and 39] [In favour of assessee] III. Section 92CA, read with section 153, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Transfer pricing - Reference to TPO (sub-section (3A)) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Whether word 'may' used in section 92CA(3A) has to be construed as shall and word 'may' is used to imply that TPO can pass order

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 Officer is based on the fees charged by the banks. Quite clearly, the aforesaid approach of the income-tax authorities is inconsistent with the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd.(supra). As per Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the instance of a commercial bank issuing bank guarantee

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section Mumbai A.Y. 2011–12 by Assessee 144C(13) ITA no.1641/Mum./2016 DRP–2, 9. 14.12.2015 144C(5) Mumbai A.Y. 2011–12 by Revenue 10. ITA no.2131/Mum./2017 DRP–2, 07.11.2016 144C(13) Mumbai A.Y. 12–13 by Assessee 2. Since all the aforesaid appeals pertain to the same assessee involving multiple issues, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these