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

13 comparables with arithmetic mean of 14.04%. The margin shown by the assessee being 15.65%, the price charged to the A.E. for the international transaction was found to be within arm's length. The Transfer Pricing Officer after perusing the transfer pricing study of the assessee, however, was of the view that some of the companies selected by the assessee

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

13) of Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 1 July 2012 Note 3. Chargeable because of section 112A read with section 45 read with section 48 read with Explanation (a)(i) to section 55(2)(ac) of the Act. Note 4. Chargeable because of section 112A read with section 45 read with section 48 read with Explanation

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

transferring of unlisted shares at\na price different from the fair market value (i.e. no or inadequate\nconsideration) of the shares and also included within its ambit\ntransactions undertaken in shares of the company (not being a\ncompany in which public are substantially interested) either for\ninadequate consideration or without consideration, where\nrecipient is a firm or a company

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

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

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

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

13, in the decision referred to above, the Tribunal has deleted the addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment with the following observations:– “21. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record in the light of decisions relied upon. Though, the Transfer Pricing Officer has alleged that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate

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 to benchmark the interest as directed. 032. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 033. Ground no. 2 and 3 of the appeal with respect to not considering the sale of empty containers, etc. as profit industrial unit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 034. The brief facts shows

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 to benchmark the interest as directed. 032. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 033. Ground no. 2 and 3 of the appeal with respect to not considering the sale of empty containers, etc. as profit industrial unit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 034. The brief facts shows

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 to benchmark the interest as directed. 032. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 033. Ground no. 2 and 3 of the appeal with respect to not considering the sale of empty containers, etc. as profit industrial unit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 034. The brief facts shows

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 to benchmark the interest as directed. 032. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 033. Ground no. 2 and 3 of the appeal with respect to not considering the sale of empty containers, etc. as profit industrial unit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 034. The brief facts shows

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 to benchmark the interest as directed. 032. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 033. Ground no. 2 and 3 of the appeal with respect to not considering the sale of empty containers, etc. as profit industrial unit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 034. The brief facts shows

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 to benchmark the interest as directed. 032. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 033. Ground no. 2 and 3 of the appeal with respect to not considering the sale of empty containers, etc. as profit industrial unit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 034. The brief facts shows

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 to benchmark the interest as directed. 032. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 033. Ground no. 2 and 3 of the appeal with respect to not considering the sale of empty containers, etc. as profit industrial unit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 034. The brief facts shows

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 to benchmark the interest as directed. 032. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 033. Ground no. 2 and 3 of the appeal with respect to not considering the sale of empty containers, etc. as profit industrial unit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 034. The brief facts shows

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 to benchmark the interest as directed. 032. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 033. Ground no. 2 and 3 of the appeal with respect to not considering the sale of empty containers, etc. as profit industrial unit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 034. The brief facts shows