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 10A of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned AU erred in reducing the telecommunication charges only from the export turnover and not from both, i.e total turnover and export turnover, in computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

Pricing Officer ('TPO') and the learned Assessing Officer ('AO')\nunder the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred\non facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 11,97,15,774 and Rs.\n6,34,82,242 to the international transactions of provision of data\nprocessing and software services respectively of the Appellant based

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

15 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 26. In ground no.6, the assessee has challenged the decision of the Departmental Authorities in holding that service provided to the AE under intellectual property service agreement (IPSA) is akin to ITES. 27. As discussed earlier, in the transfer pricing study report the assessee considered the consultancy services provided under IPSA

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 92C of the Act r/w rule 10B. As discussed elsewhere in this order, such determination of arm's length price on ad–hoc / estimation basis is not permissible under the scheme of the Act as the Transfer Pricing Officer is duty bound to determine the arm's length price by following any one of the most appropriate method prescribed

J.P MORGAN ADVISORS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

15,254, as against the price charged by the assessee at ` 32,52,031. The resultant short fall of ` 5,85,288, was treated as the adjustment to the arm's length price. The aforesaid adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was added back in the draft assessment order. 45. Though, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP against

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

15,410/- is the investment in Brazil Unit. He further referred to the annual accounts of both the Mauritius subsidiaries. In the end, he submitted the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has made an addition at the rate of 14.39% whereas the learned CIT (A) reduced it to 8.25%. He submitted that as the advances have been given to the Ipca

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

15,410/- is the investment in Brazil Unit. He further referred to the annual accounts of both the Mauritius subsidiaries. In the end, he submitted the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has made an addition at the rate of 14.39% whereas the learned CIT (A) reduced it to 8.25%. He submitted that as the advances have been given to the Ipca

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

15,410/- is the investment in Brazil Unit. He further referred to the annual accounts of both the Mauritius subsidiaries. In the end, he submitted the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has made an addition at the rate of 14.39% whereas the learned CIT (A) reduced it to 8.25%. He submitted that as the advances have been given to the Ipca

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

15,410/- is the investment in Brazil Unit. He further referred to the annual accounts of both the Mauritius subsidiaries. In the end, he submitted the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has made an addition at the rate of 14.39% whereas the learned CIT (A) reduced it to 8.25%. He submitted that as the advances have been given to the Ipca

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

15,410/- is the investment in Brazil Unit. He further referred to the annual accounts of both the Mauritius subsidiaries. In the end, he submitted the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has made an addition at the rate of 14.39% whereas the learned CIT (A) reduced it to 8.25%. He submitted that as the advances have been given to the Ipca

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

15,410/- is the investment in Brazil Unit. He further referred to the annual accounts of both the Mauritius subsidiaries. In the end, he submitted the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has made an addition at the rate of 14.39% whereas the learned CIT (A) reduced it to 8.25%. He submitted that as the advances have been given to the Ipca

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

15,410/- is the investment in Brazil Unit. He further referred to the annual accounts of both the Mauritius subsidiaries. In the end, he submitted the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has made an addition at the rate of 14.39% whereas the learned CIT (A) reduced it to 8.25%. He submitted that as the advances have been given to the Ipca

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

15,410/- is the investment in Brazil Unit. He further referred to the annual accounts of both the Mauritius subsidiaries. In the end, he submitted the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has made an addition at the rate of 14.39% whereas the learned CIT (A) reduced it to 8.25%. He submitted that as the advances have been given to the Ipca

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

15,410/- is the investment in Brazil Unit. He further referred to the annual accounts of both the Mauritius subsidiaries. In the end, he submitted the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has made an addition at the rate of 14.39% whereas the learned CIT (A) reduced it to 8.25%. He submitted that as the advances have been given to the Ipca

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

15,410/- is the investment in Brazil Unit. He further referred to the annual accounts of both the Mauritius subsidiaries. In the end, he submitted the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has made an addition at the rate of 14.39% whereas the learned CIT (A) reduced it to 8.25%. He submitted that as the advances have been given to the Ipca

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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 of the Act expires i.e. 31.10.2018. 15. Now the question arises as to how the period of 60 days prior to the date of transfer pricing

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

15 “disregard of the actual cost incurred by the assessee.” On this point, reference has been made to a communication dated 14/10/2011 addressed to the Transfer Pricing Officer, a copy of which is placed at pages 115 to 126 of the Paper Book. In this communication, assessee explained the basis on which the prices have been charged from the associated