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

21,81,115, was treated as transfer pricing adjustment. Though, the assessee objected to selection of certain comparables before the DRP, but the DRP mostly rejected the contention of the assessee and retained the comparables selected by the TPO. Hereafter, we will deal with each of the comparable objected by the assessee. MOLD–TEK TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED 50. Learned Sr. Counsel

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

transfer pricing order is invalid and thus\nentire assessment is bad in law as provisions of section 144C(1) of the\nAct are not applicable to the Appellant,\nFinal assessment order passed is time barred - The ground was\nrequested to be kept as academic.\n1. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO erred in not passing the\nfinal assessment

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

section 92C of the Act r/w rule 10B. As discussed elsewhere in this order, such determination of arm's length price on ad–hoc / estimation basis is not permissible under the scheme of the Act as the Transfer Pricing Officer is duty bound to determine the arm's length price by following any one of the most appropriate method prescribed

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

21. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. On going through the annual report of the company placed in the paper book, it is noticed that the company is a SEBI registered merchant banker and operates under a single segment i.e., merchant banking. It is also noticed that in assessee’s own transfer pricing proceedings

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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.

21 months therefore, expires on 31.12.2019 that must stand excluded since Section 92CA(3A) states 'before 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to Section 153 expires'. Excluding 31.12.2019, the period of 60 days would expire on 01.11.2019 and the transfer pricing

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

Transfer Pricing Officer noticed that assessee did not charge any fee or commission for providing corporate guarantee as a collateral for the aforesaid borrowing to Barclays Bank on behalf of its associated enterprise. The preliminary stand of the assessee was 21 that providing of the corporate guarantee was not an ‘international transaction’ within the meaning of section

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 and the same therefore ought to be deleted. Interest under section 234B 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B amounting to Rs.3,48,71,080/- Interest under section 234C 20. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case