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

11,58,618 under section 234D of the Act for 42\nmonths, whereas he should have charged interest for only 38 months\n(December 2010 to January 2014).\n6.3. The AO erred in facts and in law in not taking into account that\nrefund of Rs. 55,17,230 pertaining to AY 2009-10 was adjusted on 4\nDecember

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

4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2010 and the order of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated

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

4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2010 and the order of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated

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

4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2010 and the order of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated

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

4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2010 and the order of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated

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

4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2010 and the order of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated

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

4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2010 and the order of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated

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

4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2010 and the order of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated

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

4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2010 and the order of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated

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

4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2010 and the order of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated

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

4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2010 and the order of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer pricing 1(1), Mumbai (TPO), Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated

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. Shri Anand Mohan, the learned Departmental Representative submitted, the functions of the company matched with that of the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said to be functionally dissimilar to the assessee. Further, he submitted, the aforesaid factual position is vindicated from the fact that the assessee itself had selected it as a comparable in transfer pricing study report. Thus

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.

4) of the Act was made which expires on 31.12.2018. So the limitation for passing the order under section 92CA(3) is 60 days prior to the date prescribed under section 153 of the Act. In the instant case due date for passing the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act is 31.10.2018 whereas the TP order in this

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

4) of section 92C in conformity with the arm's length price as so determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer." IT(TP)A No.720/MUM/2015 Page 8 of 29 “The Transfer Pricing Officer vide order u/s. 92CA(3) of the income-tax Act, 1961, dated 13/01/14 has held that adjustments aggregating to Rs.17,24,50,468/- is made after considering

SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1075/Mum./2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011–12) Solar Turbines India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Turbomach India P. Ltd.), 401, 402, 403, 4Th Floor ……………. Appellant Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan – Aabct7422R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde A/W Shri Ketan Ved रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 02.01.2017 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

11. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record in the light of the decisions relied upon. Undisputedly, a reading of the transfer pricing order makes it clear that fulcrum of the entire transfer pricing adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer with regard to the alleged marketing support services provided