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

Pricing Officer ('TPO') and the learned Assessing Officer ('AO')\nunder the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred\non facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 11,97,15,774 and Rs.\n6,34,82,242 to the international transactions of provision of data\nprocessing and software services respectively of the Appellant based

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 Officer adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and considered that interest is required to be benchmarked. It collected information under Section 133(6) Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11

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 Officer adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and considered that interest is required to be benchmarked. It collected information under Section 133(6) Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11

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 Officer adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and considered that interest is required to be benchmarked. It collected information under Section 133(6) Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11

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 Officer adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and considered that interest is required to be benchmarked. It collected information under Section 133(6) Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11

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 Officer adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and considered that interest is required to be benchmarked. It collected information under Section 133(6) Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11

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 Officer adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and considered that interest is required to be benchmarked. It collected information under Section 133(6) Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11

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 Officer adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and considered that interest is required to be benchmarked. It collected information under Section 133(6) Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11

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 Officer adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and considered that interest is required to be benchmarked. It collected information under Section 133(6) Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11

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 Officer adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and considered that interest is required to be benchmarked. It collected information under Section 133(6) Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11

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 Officer adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and considered that interest is required to be benchmarked. It collected information under Section 133(6) Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11

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

11, however, in course of proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer, the assessee offered it as a comparable on the basis of current year data. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the company as a comparable since it was not selected by the assessee in the transfer pricing study report. 67. Learned DRP also agreed with the aforesaid decision

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

11 and 2011–12, copies of which are placed before us. Further, the Transfer Pricing Officer having not determined the arm's length price in conformity with statutory provision and in the process having failed to demonstrate that arm's length price shown by the assessee is incorrect, the contention of the learned Departmental Representative to restore the issue

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

11. These appeals arise out of final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r/w 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

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.

11. In order to determine if the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the Ld. TPO is barred by limitation as contended by the Ld. AR for the assessee, we would advert to the provisions contained under section 92CA(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

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

section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31/10/2011 computing the arm's length price of the international transaction, which was in variance with the stated value of such transactions. Before the Transfer Pricing Officer, assessee pointed out that it was purchasing as well as producing in- house general entertainment programmes, current affairs and films for telecasting on its channels

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

section 92(1) would not apply to the applicant, it is to be stated that it is not only when there arises income from international transaction that transfer pricing provisions get applied, even in cases of expenses, benefit, service, facility or even borrowing and lending, etc., the transfer pricing provisions get attracted, whether there arises income from it which, requires