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

16. Learned Authorised Representative contesting the rejection of its transfer pricing study submitted, investment banking industry is highly cyclical in nature. Through a chart submitted, learned Authorised Representative made an attempt to demonstrate the volatile nature of business in this segment. It was submitted, the effect of sub–prime crisis in the developed economy had started affecting the investment banking

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

16 November 2022)\nTransfer pricing order passed by Additional Commissioner of\nIncome-tax (Transfer Pricing) - 1(3), Mumbai is beyond jurisdiction\n1. The order under section

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

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel–I (DRP), Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment years 2009–10 and 2010–11. ITA no.1671/Mum./2014 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2009–10 2. Shri P.J. Pardiwala, learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that grounds

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

Transfer Pricing (*TP') adjustment in relation to export of finished goods 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/TPO in determining the Arms' Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction of export of finished goods at Rs. 10,35,77,048 instead

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

transfer pricing study report, it should not be excluded. 65. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a perusal of the annual report of the company, we have noted that a major portion of the cost comprises of payment made to third party vendors

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

16,57,112/-. The assessee is aggrieved with that order as per ground no.1 and ground no.2, only transfer pricing adjustments are under challenge before us. The learned Authorised Representative with respect to the addition of ₹24,18,705 on sale of finished goods reiterated the same argument as were advanced before us on this ground

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

16,57,112/-. The assessee is aggrieved with that order as per ground no.1 and ground no.2, only transfer pricing adjustments are under challenge before us. The learned Authorised Representative with respect to the addition of ₹24,18,705 on sale of finished goods reiterated the same argument as were advanced before us on this ground

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

16,57,112/-. The assessee is aggrieved with that order as per ground no.1 and ground no.2, only transfer pricing adjustments are under challenge before us. The learned Authorised Representative with respect to the addition of ₹24,18,705 on sale of finished goods reiterated the same argument as were advanced before us on this ground

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

16,57,112/-. The assessee is aggrieved with that order as per ground no.1 and ground no.2, only transfer pricing adjustments are under challenge before us. The learned Authorised Representative with respect to the addition of ₹24,18,705 on sale of finished goods reiterated the same argument as were advanced before us on this ground

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

16,57,112/-. The assessee is aggrieved with that order as per ground no.1 and ground no.2, only transfer pricing adjustments are under challenge before us. The learned Authorised Representative with respect to the addition of ₹24,18,705 on sale of finished goods reiterated the same argument as were advanced before us on this ground

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

16,57,112/-. The assessee is aggrieved with that order as per ground no.1 and ground no.2, only transfer pricing adjustments are under challenge before us. The learned Authorised Representative with respect to the addition of ₹24,18,705 on sale of finished goods reiterated the same argument as were advanced before us on this ground

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

16,57,112/-. The assessee is aggrieved with that order as per ground no.1 and ground no.2, only transfer pricing adjustments are under challenge before us. The learned Authorised Representative with respect to the addition of ₹24,18,705 on sale of finished goods reiterated the same argument as were advanced before us on this ground

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

16,57,112/-. The assessee is aggrieved with that order as per ground no.1 and ground no.2, only transfer pricing adjustments are under challenge before us. The learned Authorised Representative with respect to the addition of ₹24,18,705 on sale of finished goods reiterated the same argument as were advanced before us on this ground

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

16,57,112/-. The assessee is aggrieved with that order as per ground no.1 and ground no.2, only transfer pricing adjustments are under challenge before us. The learned Authorised Representative with respect to the addition of ₹24,18,705 on sale of finished goods reiterated the same argument as were advanced before us on this ground

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

16,57,112/-. The assessee is aggrieved with that order as per ground no.1 and ground no.2, only transfer pricing adjustments are under challenge before us. The learned Authorised Representative with respect to the addition of ₹24,18,705 on sale of finished goods reiterated the same argument as were advanced before us on this ground

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 expires'. Excluding 31.12.2019, the period of 60 days would expire on 01.11.2019 and the transfer pricing orders thus ought to have been passed on 31.10.2019 or any date prior thereto. Incidentally, the Board, in the Central Action Plan also indicates the dale by which the Transfer Pricing orders are to be passed as 31.10.2019. The impugned orders

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 92B of the Act and, therefore, it was required to be benchmarked as per Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations. The Transfer Pricing Officer took into consideration the information received from banks and determined a rate of 3% as an arm’s length rate to estimate the income by way of guarantee commission/fee. On this basis, the Transfer Pricing Officer worked

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

transfer pricing provisions begin from section 92 and end at section 92F; that they are contained in Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, in the special provisions relating to avoidance of tax; and that as such, it is not correct to interpret that the scheme of Tonnage Tax will override the provisions of sections