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

transfer pricing order is invalid and thus\nentire assessment is bad in law as provisions of section 144C(1) of the\nAct are not applicable to the Appellant,\nFinal assessment order passed is time barred\n1. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO erred in not passing the\nfinal assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (l) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153

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. 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 (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

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. 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

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. 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

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

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

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

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel–III (DRP), Mumbai. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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

153 of the Act thus making the transfer pricing order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. Additional Ground No. 2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section

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

153; (ii) explanation regarding accept/reject matrix of comparables and analysis of the 19 Profit Level Indicator(PLI) of the assessee vis-à-vis comparable concerns vide communication dated 27/05/2011, copies of which have been placed at pages 95, 98 to 105 of the Paper Book; (iii) working of methodology adopted for searching comparables furnished to the Transfer Pricing Officer, copy

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

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (l) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153

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.

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (1) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153

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.

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (1) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153

HAPAG LLOYD INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 153(2A) of the Act, the assessments should have been completed on/or before 31st March 2016. However, since a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing