DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GAMMON INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C of the Act . The definition of eligible assessee is reproduced herein below: “(b) “eligible assessee” means – Any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub- section(1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(15)(b) of the Act wherein the definition of ‘eligible assessee’ is given which is reproduced as under: - “For the purposes of this section- (a) ……… (b) ‘eligible assessee’ means, - (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

144C of the Act . The definition of eligible assessee is reproduced herein below: ―(b) ―eligible assessee‖ means – (i) Any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section(1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

144C of the Act . The definition of eligible assessee is reproduced herein below: ―(b) ―eligible assessee‖ means – (i) Any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section(1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

144C of the Act, which reads as under :- “(15) For the purposes of this section, - (a) ….. (b) “eligible assessee” means, - (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub- section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

144C of the Act, which reads as under :- “(15) For the purposes of this section, - (a) ….. (b) “eligible assessee” means, - (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub- section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing

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 144C(13) of the Act on 9th September, 2010. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO), erred in making addition of `29,62,754/- u/s.92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C

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 144C(13) of the Act on 9th September, 2010. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO), erred in making addition of `29,62,754/- u/s.92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C

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 144C(13) of the Act on 9th September, 2010. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO), erred in making addition of `29,62,754/- u/s.92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C

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 144C(13) of the Act on 9th September, 2010. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO), erred in making addition of `29,62,754/- u/s.92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C

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 144C(13) of the Act on 9th September, 2010. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO), erred in making addition of `29,62,754/- u/s.92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C

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

Section 144C(13) of the Act on 9th September, 2010. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO), erred in making addition of `29,62,754/- u/s.92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C

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 144C(13) of the Act on 9th September, 2010. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO), erred in making addition of `29,62,754/- u/s.92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C

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 144C(13) of the Act on 9th September, 2010. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO), erred in making addition of `29,62,754/- u/s.92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C

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 144C(13) of the Act on 9th September, 2010. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO), erred in making addition of `29,62,754/- u/s.92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C

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 144C(13) of the Act on 9th September, 2010. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO), erred in making addition of `29,62,754/- u/s.92CA(4) of the Act on account of adjustment in Arms Length Price (ALP) pursuant to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u's.144C

ACIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LANXESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing and determination of Arms Length Price. The provisions of Length Price. The provisions of Section 144C do not, thus merely do not, thus merely prescribe procedure but a prescribe procedure but a substantive exercise in assessment. substantive exercise in assessment. 25. The Supreme Court in the case of R.Sharadamma (supra) after 25. The Supreme Court in the case

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 1, THANE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing and determination of Arms Length Price. The provisions of Length Price. The provisions of Section 144C do not, thus merely do not, thus merely prescribe procedure but a prescribe procedure but a substantive exercise in assessment. substantive exercise in assessment. 25. The Supreme Court in the case of R.Sharadamma (supra) after 25. The Supreme Court in the case