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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative on the instructions of the assessee did not want to press grounds no.3 and 4, hence, these grounds are dismissed. 4. In ground no.1 along with its sub–grounds assessee has challenged transfer pricing adjustment made of ` 18,10,72,120, to the arm's length price of royalty paid to Associated

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 154 of the Act on 17th November 2011. Thus, on the basis of the margin computed of the comparable companies an adjustment of `239,02,52,498, was made to the arm's length price. 3. As regards ITES segment, during the proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer the assessee furnished a fresh list of 15 comparables under Transactional

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

3. 13.88% IDC India Ltd. 4. 184.91% L&T Capital Co. Ltd. 5. 6.51% SERI Capital Markets Ltd. 6. Sumedha Fiscal Service Ltd. 48.84% 7. (segmental) Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. 209.19% 8. (segmental) 105.10% Arithmetic mean 8. Applying the arithmetic mean of 105.10%, the Transfer Pricing Officer worked out the arm's length price of the international transaction in respect

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

3) read with Section 144C (4) of the act on 9/file/2013 wherein over and above the transfer pricing adjustment he made the 090. disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 28,475,543 with respect to the plant and machinery acquired before 31/3/2008 on which the balance depreciation of 10

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

3) read with Section 144C (4) of the act on 9/file/2013 wherein over and above the transfer pricing adjustment he made the 090. disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 28,475,543 with respect to the plant and machinery acquired before 31/3/2008 on which the balance depreciation of 10

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

3) read with Section 144C (4) of the act on 9/file/2013 wherein over and above the transfer pricing adjustment he made the 090. disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 28,475,543 with respect to the plant and machinery acquired before 31/3/2008 on which the balance depreciation of 10

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

3) read with Section 144C (4) of the act on 9/file/2013 wherein over and above the transfer pricing adjustment he made the 090. disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 28,475,543 with respect to the plant and machinery acquired before 31/3/2008 on which the balance depreciation of 10

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

3) read with Section 144C (4) of the act on 9/file/2013 wherein over and above the transfer pricing adjustment he made the 090. disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 28,475,543 with respect to the plant and machinery acquired before 31/3/2008 on which the balance depreciation of 10

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

3) read with Section 144C (4) of the act on 9/file/2013 wherein over and above the transfer pricing adjustment he made the 090. disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 28,475,543 with respect to the plant and machinery acquired before 31/3/2008 on which the balance depreciation of 10

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

3) read with Section 144C (4) of the act on 9/file/2013 wherein over and above the transfer pricing adjustment he made the 090. disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 28,475,543 with respect to the plant and machinery acquired before 31/3/2008 on which the balance depreciation of 10

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

3) read with Section 144C (4) of the act on 9/file/2013 wherein over and above the transfer pricing adjustment he made the 090. disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 28,475,543 with respect to the plant and machinery acquired before 31/3/2008 on which the balance depreciation of 10

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

3) read with Section 144C (4) of the act on 9/file/2013 wherein over and above the transfer pricing adjustment he made the 090. disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 28,475,543 with respect to the plant and machinery acquired before 31/3/2008 on which the balance depreciation of 10

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

3) read with Section 144C (4) of the act on 9/file/2013 wherein over and above the transfer pricing adjustment he made the 090. disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 28,475,543 with respect to the plant and machinery acquired before 31/3/2008 on which the balance depreciation of 10

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (l) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

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.

3) read with section 153 of the Act. 12. Undisputedly, sub-section (3A) to section 92CA has been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2007 providing time limit for the Transfer Pricing Officer to pass the order i.e. within a period of 60 days prior to the date of completion of assessment as per section 153. So, under section 92CA (3A) read with section

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

10,72,120 actually paid by the assessee. Thus, it is evident that the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm's length price of royalty payment by making an ad–hoc adjustment purely on estimate basis without following any approved method for determination of arm's length price as prescribed under the statutory provisions. Thus, the primary issue which

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

3) afresh. 028. The judicial precedents cited are discussed and considered as under:- i. In Metacaps Engineering and Mahindra construction (ITA number 2895/M/2014 dated 11/9/2017) the assessment order was passed on 29/11/2011 for assessment year 2009 – 10. The revisionary order was passed under section 263 of the income tax act on 28/2/2014, which was prior to insertion of explanation