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

5), Mumbai is without\njurisdiction and bad in law since Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax\n(Transfer Pricing) cannot be a TPO as per section 92CA of the Act for the\nyear under consideration;\n2. The Ld. AO erred in a passing draft assessment order in the case of\nthe Appellant in lieu of the final assessment order given that

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

5. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee has made varied arguments in order to assail the aforesaid addition. Firstly, it is pointed out that the selection of RPM as the most appropriate method by the Transfer 8 Pricing Officer is inherently incorrect, inasmuch as, the associated enterprise i.e. ATL has not made any further sale

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. After an international transaction is noticed subject to satisfaction of section 92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-Section (1) of Section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per Section 92CA (3A), the order

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

5 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. Additional Ground No. 3: 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 92CA (3A) r.w.s 153

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. 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. 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

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

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. 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. 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 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

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 the transfer pricing adjustment, however, learned DRP rejected the objections of the assessee. 46. 47. Though, this company

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. After an international transaction is noticed subject to satisfaction of section 92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-section (1) of section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per section 92CA(3A), the order

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. After an international transaction is noticed subject to satisfaction of section 92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-section (1) of section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per section 92CA(3A), the order

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. After an international transaction is noticed subject to satisfaction of section 92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-Section (1) of Section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per Section 92CA (3A), the order

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at ` 5,68,97,341. 144. The assessee is engaged in the business of broadcasting and telecasting of television channels. Accordingly, it incurs up–linking charges in connection with its broadcasting business. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee paid ` 5,68,97,341, towards up–linking fees to Television Eighteen India