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.

14A of the Act. Non applicability of transfer pricing regulations 29/Mum/2018 & CO No. 21/Mum/2019 M/s. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transfer pricing regulations does not apply to the since the Appellant is a company registered under the Tonnage

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 adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt income of ₹80,97,777/-, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed

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 adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt income of ₹80,97,777/-, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed

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 adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt income of ₹80,97,777/-, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed

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 adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt income of ₹80,97,777/-, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed

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

transfer pricing adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt income of ₹80,97,777/-, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed

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 adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt income of ₹80,97,777/-, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed

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 adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt income of ₹80,97,777/-, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed

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 adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt income of ₹80,97,777/-, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed

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 adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt income of ₹80,97,777/-, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed

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 adjustment the learned Assessing Officer made the following disallowances; Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 i. Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was reduced by ₹7,54,500/- on account of different in form no. 3CL. ii. The assessee has earned exempt income of ₹80,97,777/-, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

transfer of such mutual fund units. From the detail furnished by assessee it was noticed that an amount of Rs. 64,000/- had been taken as the amount disallowable u/s 94(7) in respect of short term capital gains without security transaction tax. Similarly, an amount of R.s 25,686/- had been taken as the amount disallowable

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 15/02/2012. 2 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- “1. Addition on account of Arm's Length Price by TPO Rs. 24,91,59,200/- (i) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding rejection

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

price gone by that time, therefore, in view of the provisions of sub therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-clauses (3) and (4) of section 43CA of nd (4) of section 43CA of the Act, no addition is called for since a part of the consideration has been received the Act, no addition is called for since

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

price gone by that time, therefore, in view of the provisions of sub therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-clauses (3) and (4) of section 43CA of nd (4) of section 43CA of the Act, no addition is called for since a part of the consideration has been received the Act, no addition is called for since

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

prices much below their fair market value or without any consideration. It is pertinent to mention that after amendment to section 56(2)(viia), only the inadequate consideration is deemed to be income chargeable to tax. It is not in dispute that the assessee has received gift of shares of UPL and UEL being listed company, which cannot be treated

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Officer and advanced\nthe following submissions:\n(i) It was submitted that the Associated Enterprise had incurred\nlosses during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2014-\n15. The absence of dividend income during the year was, therefore,\na direct consequence of the AE's financial performance and not\nindicative of the nature of the transaction

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

section 37, it is not necessary that the loan amount should be exclusively used in the business of the assessee. However, the requirement is that it should be used for the purpose of the business which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself. What is to be seen is that the transfer of borrowed funds