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

2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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

2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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

2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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

2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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

2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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

2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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

2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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

2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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

2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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.

section 153 is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the final assessment order dated 2 April 2014 is time barred and liable to be quashed. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR has submitted that the grounds of appeal no. 1 to 24 pertains to transfer pricing issues and ground

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

142. Since the issue before us is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, there is no additional advantage for the assessee by getting the trademark registered. Respectfully following the aforesaid observations, we set aside the impugned order passed by the DRP and allow the ground no.12, raised by the assessee. 65 Viacom

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer pricing-II (5), Mumbai) - enclosed in page 762 of the paper book filed before us. 3. 22/07/2008 Notice u/s.143(2) of the Act for Asst Year 2007- 08 issued by DCIT-Circle-2(2), Mumbai - enclosed in page 763 of the paper book filed before us. 4. 29/08/2008 Notice u/s.115 WE(2) of the Act issued for the Asst

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 247(7.1) of the ITA provides that the transfer pricing rules will not apply to guarantees provided by Canadian parent corporations in respect of certain financial commitments of their Canadian controlled foreign I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 25 of 56 affiliates to support the active business operations of those affiliates". As to what could

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 247(7.1) of the ITA provides that the transfer pricing rules will not apply to guarantees provided by Canadian parent corporations in respect of certain financial commitments of their Canadian controlled foreign I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 25 of 56 affiliates to support the active business operations of those affiliates". As to what could

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143. In the instant case, paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment order records that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued. The Revenue has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the said notices are not required 10 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143. In the instant case, paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment order records that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued. The Revenue has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the said notices are not required 10 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143. In the instant case, paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment order records that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued. The Revenue has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the said notices are not required 10 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143. In the instant case, paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment order records that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued. The Revenue has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the said notices are not required 10 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects