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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

price at which the shares are issued to the employees in order to compensate the payout obligation which might arise on ESOP shares either at buyback or at liquidation. 9.10 Allowability of ESOP expense in the income Tax Act- There is no specific section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a company at a free determined price. In an ESOP

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to mean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the company, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a company at a free determined price. In an ESOP

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 1 (3)92), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is a In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is a In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

transfer pricing adjustment as per the direction of the Ld. DRP however retained the di however retained the disallowance for employees share option sallowance for employees share option scheme expenses as well as disallowance u/s 14A r.s.r. 8D of the scheme expenses as well as disallowance u/s 14A r.s.r. 8D of the scheme expenses as well as disallowance

CLSA INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodclsa India Private Limited Acit, Range-4(1) 6Th Floor, Room No.640, (Formerly Clsa India Limited) 8/F Dalamal House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan – Aaacc2262K (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing angle that it had acted as an independent enterprise functioning in an uncontrolled environment while agreeing to pay the referral fees of Rs.2,14,36,814/- to its AE, viz. CLSA Ltd., Hong Kong for services which it had hitherto received free of charge. Accordingly, the TPO being of the view that the payment of the referral fees

SHAILENDRA BHANDARI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Shailendra Acit, Bhandari, Circle-2(2)(1), E-27, Dhanraj Mahal, Room No.545, Chhatrapati Shivaji Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maharaj Marg, M.K. Road, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai - 400020 Colaba, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aadpb2390K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, A.R. Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2021 O R D E R

15A, 15B, 15C and 15D in Waterfront building, Colaba Mumbai' constitute a 'capital asset' within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act 1961 or not and whether the assessee was merely depositing moneys with the builder cum developer by way of deposits in hope for future assets like shares which may be issued and the building which

LUCENT TECHNOLGIES GRL LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

section I 15A(l)(b)(A) of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP while computing the income as per Article 7(3) r.w.s. 115A(I)(b)(A) erred in holding that the entire receipts from supply of software to Reliance are attributable to the PE in India

FAIRBRIDGE CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI - 6, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

15A) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines 'employees stock option' to\nmean option given to the whole time directors, officers or the employees of the\ncompany, which gives such directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to\npurchase or subscribe at a future rate the securities offered by a company at a free\ndetermined price. In an ESOP

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer of those assets would be chargeable to tax under section 45 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the term “property” has a wider connotation as compared to the term “assets”. Further, it is pertinent to note that the provisions of Explanation-1 clause (h) to section 115 JB(2) of the Act recognise

JUST DIAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer of those assets would be chargeable to tax under section 45 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the term “property” has a wider connotation as compared to the term “assets”. Further, it is pertinent to note that the provisions of Explanation-1 clause (h) to section 115 JB(2) of the Act recognise