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

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), the Appellant respectfully submits that the learned A0 erred in passing the order on the following grounds: 1. In making an upward transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 946,786,679 in determining the arms length pricing (ALP) of the international transactions pertaining to (a) investment advisory services in respect

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

31. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the DRP and the Transfer Pricing Officer. 32. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. A reference to the Profit & Loss account of the company at Page–112 of the paper book along with Schedule–10, reveals that though the company has earned revenue from different activities

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

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

transferring of unlisted shares at\na price different from the fair market value (i.e. no or inadequate\nconsideration) of the shares and also included within its ambit\ntransactions undertaken in shares of the company (not being a\ncompany in which public are substantially interested) either for\ninadequate consideration or without consideration, where\nrecipient is a firm or a company

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

31,440 by by assessee assessee being being cost cost of of areas areas received/receivable by the assessee on received/receivable by the assessee on account of land cost of construction @ account of land cost of construction @ 2,000/- On account of TDR cost of construction @ On account of TDR cost of construction

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

31,440 by by assessee assessee being being cost cost of of areas areas received/receivable by the assessee on received/receivable by the assessee on account of land cost of construction @ account of land cost of construction @ 2,000/- On account of TDR cost of construction @ On account of TDR cost of construction

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

31,440 by by assessee assessee being being cost cost of of areas areas received/receivable by the assessee on received/receivable by the assessee on account of land cost of construction @ account of land cost of construction @ 2,000/- On account of TDR cost of construction @ On account of TDR cost of construction

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

price”. The second important point of distinction is, and that is material in the present context, that while non-compliance with a notice under section 92D(3) may result in being visited with a penalty under section 271G, no such consequence is visualized, under section 271G, for non-compliance with the notices under section 92CA(2). The third important point

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

2, 5 and 11 are general in nature, hence, do not require adjudication. Considering the above, these grounds are dismissed. 3. Further, on the instructions of the assessee he submitted that grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 are not to be pressed. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned Sr. Counsel

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

31 ITA 6081/Mum/2018 agreement and further all the parties relating to such agreement are located outside India, hence, are not governed by Indian rules and regulations. The aforesaid objection of the assessee has neither been dealt with nor controverted by the Transfer Pricing Officer. Thus, when the comparable proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer are in different geographical location

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.

31. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer erred in passing transfer pricing assessment order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on 30 January 2014, which was barred by 29/Mum/2018 & CO No. 21/Mum/2019 M/s. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. limitation, thereby rendering the transfer pricing order as null and void

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

2) of Section 92CA 3. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment of 7,5,44,049/- on account of interest in respect of interest Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by computing notional interest at Libor + 200% rate of interest as per the directions

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

2) of Section 92CA 3. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment of 7,5,44,049/- on account of interest in respect of interest Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by computing notional interest at Libor + 200% rate of interest as per the directions

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

2) of Section 92CA 3. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment of 7,5,44,049/- on account of interest in respect of interest Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by computing notional interest at Libor + 200% rate of interest as per the directions

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

2) of Section 92CA 3. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment of 7,5,44,049/- on account of interest in respect of interest Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by computing notional interest at Libor + 200% rate of interest as per the directions

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

2) of Section 92CA 3. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment of 7,5,44,049/- on account of interest in respect of interest Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by computing notional interest at Libor + 200% rate of interest as per the directions

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

2) of Section 92CA 3. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment of 7,5,44,049/- on account of interest in respect of interest Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by computing notional interest at Libor + 200% rate of interest as per the directions

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

2) of Section 92CA 3. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment of 7,5,44,049/- on account of interest in respect of interest Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by computing notional interest at Libor + 200% rate of interest as per the directions

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

2) of Section 92CA 3. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment of 7,5,44,049/- on account of interest in respect of interest Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by computing notional interest at Libor + 200% rate of interest as per the directions