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

Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, 1

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

Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, 1

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

Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, 1

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

Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, 1

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

Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, 1

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

Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, 1

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

Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, 1

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

Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, 1

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

1), Mumbai Assesseeby : Shri Dhanesh Bafnaa/w Ms. Hirali Desai Revenue by : Shri Jayant Kumar Date of Hearing – 26.04.2018 Date of Order – 23.07.2018 O R D E R PER SAKTIJITDEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 31st January 2017, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income

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

13 the Transfer Pricing Officer himself has allowed working capital adjustment to the assessee. That being the case, we direct the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to consider assessee’s claim of working capital adjustment while computing the margins of the comparables. 42. At this juncture, it is necessary to observe, in the course of hearing the learned Departmental Representative

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

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), the Appellant respectfully submits that the learned A0 erred in passing the order on the following grounds: 1. In making an upward transfer pricing

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

section 37(1) of the Act. However, ultimately, he has allowed, on ad–hoc basis, 10% of the amount paid by the assessee to the AE towards royalty. Of course, referring to certain agreements between unrelated parties, which according to him can be used as external CUP, the Transfer Pricing Officer has concluded that 1% of the net value added

JSW ENERGY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING) 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

section 92D(1). These were existing at time Transfer Pricing study is finalised. There is no application of mind involved and just a mechanical delivery is sufficient here. Maintenance of the document prescribed in Rule 10D(1)/10D(2) is a separate matter. The issue is non-production when called for by Transfer Pricing Officer and for this reasonable cause

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

13 the Transfer Pricing Officer himself has allowed working capital adjustment to the assessee. That being the case, we direct the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to consider assessee’s claim of working capital adjustment while computing the margins of the comparables.” 34. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider assessee’s claim of working capital

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

13) read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the Assessment Year 2011-12, as per directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as `the DRP′] under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2.1. In ITA No. 884/Mum/2016, the Assessee has raised grounds of appeal

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.

13. 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 of the Act. So, under section 92CA (3A) read with section 153, Ld. TPO was required

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

sections": [ "90", "92C(3)", "92CA(1)", "37(1)", "80G", "14A", "135", "40(a)(i)", "40(a)(ia)", "115JB", "10AA", "195", "10A", "9(1)(vi)", "13(2)", "13(3)", "9(1)(iv)", "Article 25", "Article 7", "Article 12" ], "issues": "The appeals raised multiple issues including transfer pricing

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

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

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

1 (a) to section 263 of the Act is also amended with effect from 1/4/2022 wherein the order passed by the learned transfer pricing officer is also included and in sub clause (iii) the order under section 92CA by the transfer pricing officer is included. Therefore, even if such order is passed by the transfer pricing Officer prior to 1/4/2022