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

pricing study as a comparable company in respect of the\nData Processing and Support Services Segment.\n• NIIT Smartserve Ltd.\n• KPIT Cummins Global Business Solutions Ltd.\n• Allsec Technologies Ltd\n• R-Systems International Ltd\nRejection of comparable for Data Processing & Support services segment:\n1.3.2 The learned AO/TPO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred\non facts

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

27. As discussed earlier, in the transfer pricing study report the assessee considered the consultancy services provided under IPSA as an independent transaction and benchmarked it separately. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejecting the benchmarking of the assessee held that services rendered under IPSA are akin to BPO services. While doing so, he referred to CBDT Notification no.890(E) dated

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

27 ITA 6081/Mum/2018 determining ALP under CUP method. As per the said provision, TPO at first has to find out the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions. Thereafter, making necessary adjustments to such price, on account of differences between the international transaction and comparable uncontrolled

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

27,40,126/-. ii. However, with respect to Pacimol tablets sold by assessee to National Druggist Pvt. Ltd, which was supply to local government on tender basis as per agreed rates, he deleted the addition of ₹17,67,638/- for the reason that assessee was not free to price its products at Arm’s Length Price. iii. With respect

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

27,40,126/-. ii. However, with respect to Pacimol tablets sold by assessee to National Druggist Pvt. Ltd, which was supply to local government on tender basis as per agreed rates, he deleted the addition of ₹17,67,638/- for the reason that assessee was not free to price its products at Arm’s Length Price. iii. With respect

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

27,40,126/-. ii. However, with respect to Pacimol tablets sold by assessee to National Druggist Pvt. Ltd, which was supply to local government on tender basis as per agreed rates, he deleted the addition of ₹17,67,638/- for the reason that assessee was not free to price its products at Arm’s Length Price. iii. With respect

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

27,40,126/-. ii. However, with respect to Pacimol tablets sold by assessee to National Druggist Pvt. Ltd, which was supply to local government on tender basis as per agreed rates, he deleted the addition of ₹17,67,638/- for the reason that assessee was not free to price its products at Arm’s Length Price. iii. With respect

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

27,40,126/-. ii. However, with respect to Pacimol tablets sold by assessee to National Druggist Pvt. Ltd, which was supply to local government on tender basis as per agreed rates, he deleted the addition of ₹17,67,638/- for the reason that assessee was not free to price its products at Arm’s Length Price. iii. With respect

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

27,40,126/-. ii. However, with respect to Pacimol tablets sold by assessee to National Druggist Pvt. Ltd, which was supply to local government on tender basis as per agreed rates, he deleted the addition of ₹17,67,638/- for the reason that assessee was not free to price its products at Arm’s Length Price. iii. With respect

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

27,40,126/-. ii. However, with respect to Pacimol tablets sold by assessee to National Druggist Pvt. Ltd, which was supply to local government on tender basis as per agreed rates, he deleted the addition of ₹17,67,638/- for the reason that assessee was not free to price its products at Arm’s Length Price. iii. With respect

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

27,40,126/-. ii. However, with respect to Pacimol tablets sold by assessee to National Druggist Pvt. Ltd, which was supply to local government on tender basis as per agreed rates, he deleted the addition of ₹17,67,638/- for the reason that assessee was not free to price its products at Arm’s Length Price. iii. With respect

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

27,40,126/-. ii. However, with respect to Pacimol tablets sold by assessee to National Druggist Pvt. Ltd, which was supply to local government on tender basis as per agreed rates, he deleted the addition of ₹17,67,638/- for the reason that assessee was not free to price its products at Arm’s Length Price. iii. With respect

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

27,40,126/-. ii. However, with respect to Pacimol tablets sold by assessee to National Druggist Pvt. Ltd, which was supply to local government on tender basis as per agreed rates, he deleted the addition of ₹17,67,638/- for the reason that assessee was not free to price its products at Arm’s Length Price. iii. With respect

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

27 J.P. Morgan Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. determined the arm's length price of the transaction at ` 38,15,254, as against the price charged by the assessee at ` 32,52,031. The resultant short fall of ` 5,85,288, was treated as the adjustment to the arm's length price. The aforesaid adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer

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.

27. erred in upholding interest under section 234C of the Act; Levy of Interest under section 234D of the Act 28. erred in upholding interest under section 234D of the Act; Penalty proceedings 29. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 rws 271(1)(c) of the Act The Appellant further prays that any other relief as your Honour

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 with its associated enterprises, which inter-alia, included sale of TV Programmes and films to Asia Today Ltd., Mauritius ( in short ‘ATL’) for a stated consideration of Rs.79,35,27,132/-. The Transfer Pricing

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

SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1075/Mum./2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011–12) Solar Turbines India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Turbomach India P. Ltd.), 401, 402, 403, 4Th Floor ……………. Appellant Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan – Aabct7422R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde A/W Shri Ketan Ved रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 02.01.2017 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

section 92CA of the Act for A.Y. 2012– 13. Though, each assessment year is independent and principle of res judicata generally do not apply to income tax proceeding, however, rule of consistency cannot be ignored if there is no material difference in facts. Therefore, there being no basis for concluding that the assessee has provided any marketing support services