DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

price was determined as outstanding management fees along with a mark-up of 10% of the cost towards the recovery efforts. The payment of outstanding Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited ITA No. 4161 & 4162 & CO No 204 & 205 (AY 2015-16 & 2016- 17) charge was necessary to remove the encumbrance and to clear the title. The assessee also provided details

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

E R PER SAKTIJITDEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 31st January 2017, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13 in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The assessee

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

E), dated 26th September 2010. A careful reading of the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer in Para–15.2 of his order would clearly establish that by referring to the CBDT notification under consideration he has concluded that the income from IPSA agreement either has to be classified under software development or ITES. On further analysis, he has finally concluded

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

E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Captioned appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 23rd October 2012, passed under section 143(3) r/w 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in pursuance to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the assessment year 2008–09. Grounds raised

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

22 and 23 of the order, page 217 of the Case Law\nPaper Book No. 2):\n(a) ...there is not even a token mention of the draft orders\nhaving been perused by the Additional Commissioner. The letter\nsimply grants an approval.\n(b)...it is an admitted position that the assessment orders\nare totally silent about the Assessing Officer

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 06/12/2024 passed by ld. CIT(A)-53, Mumbai in relation to the assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the Act for the A.Y.2020-21. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 2 Ramesh Jaisinghani Based on the facts and circumstances of the case

GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO vide ground nos. 4 to 7. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that he is not interested in prosecuting these grounds for the reason that the assessee’s issues are already allowed by ITAT while adjudicating regular appeal against assessment framed

DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI vs. GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO vide ground nos. 4 to 7. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that he is not interested in prosecuting these grounds for the reason that the assessee’s issues are already allowed by ITAT while adjudicating regular appeal against assessment framed

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

22) (a) in respect of gift of share by DHPL to NCPL without consideration is unsustainable. 43. So far as the taxability of gifted shares under section 28(iv) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that the provision of section 28(iv) can be invoked to bring to tax the amount or benefit, if the three

JSW ENERGY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING) 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

E. It is not recorded in the assessment order that penalty proceedings under section 271G is separately initiated (Para 22 of written submission). 8. The Transfer Pricing Officer in order of penalty mention regarding compliance as under: 6.3 Further, the TPO issued notice u/s 92D(3) of Act on 13.02.2017 requesting the assessee to submit the above mentioned information/documents

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

INFOMEDIA PRESS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN INFOMEDIA 18 LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi, (Jm) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4069/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Range 6(1), Vs. Ruby House, A –Wing, Mumbai. J K Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4846/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Tax , Circle 6(1), Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Vs. Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Ruby House, A –Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, J K Sawant Marg, M K Road, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Price Waterhouse Coopers. The assessee had incurred expenses towards Consultancy charges to the tune of Rs.61,99,289/-, out of which the assessee itself disallowed a sum of Rs.47,99,287/-. The balance amount represented due diligence fee of Rs.14.00 lakhs referred above, which was paid in connection with ―Project ivory‖. The AO disallowed the same

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. INFOMEDIA 18 LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi, (Jm) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4069/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Range 6(1), Vs. Ruby House, A –Wing, Mumbai. J K Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4846/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Tax , Circle 6(1), Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Vs. Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Ruby House, A –Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, J K Sawant Marg, M K Road, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Price Waterhouse Coopers. The assessee had incurred expenses towards Consultancy charges to the tune of Rs.61,99,289/-, out of which the assessee itself disallowed a sum of Rs.47,99,287/-. The balance amount represented due diligence fee of Rs.14.00 lakhs referred above, which was paid in connection with ―Project ivory‖. The AO disallowed the same

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

22. The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, in pursuance to the query raised by the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 133(6) of the Act, the company has furnished its financial results for the financial year 2008–09 and 2009–10. In this context, he drew our attention to the financial results for March ending

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

E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against directions of the DRP-1 , Mumbai dated 06-07-2018 issued u/s 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which, in turn, arises against the order of the AO / TPO passed u/s 143(3) 2 ITA 6081/Mum/2018 r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income

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

E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This is the bunch of 10 appeals pertaining to M/s IPCA Laboratories Limited (the appellant/ assessee) for A.Ys. 2005- 06 to 2010-11 filed by the assessee as well as cross appeals by the learned Assessing Officer, involving common grounds. The parties argued the lead appeal for AY 2008-09 filed