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

297,346/– no interest was charged. The learned transfer pricing officer did not accept the benchmarking methodology for sale of pharmaceutical products as well as noncharging of interest on unsecured loan to its subsidiaries. 085. With respect to the sale of pharmaceutical products the assessee has sold finished goods to its AE during the year. Assessee has benchmarked the sale

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

297,346/– no interest was charged. The learned transfer pricing officer did not accept the benchmarking methodology for sale of pharmaceutical products as well as noncharging of interest on unsecured loan to its subsidiaries. 085. With respect to the sale of pharmaceutical products the assessee has sold finished goods to its AE during the year. Assessee has benchmarked the sale

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

297,346/– no interest was charged. The learned transfer pricing officer did not accept the benchmarking methodology for sale of pharmaceutical products as well as noncharging of interest on unsecured loan to its subsidiaries. 085. With respect to the sale of pharmaceutical products the assessee has sold finished goods to its AE during the year. Assessee has benchmarked the sale

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

297,346/– no interest was charged. The learned transfer pricing officer did not accept the benchmarking methodology for sale of pharmaceutical products as well as noncharging of interest on unsecured loan to its subsidiaries. 085. With respect to the sale of pharmaceutical products the assessee has sold finished goods to its AE during the year. Assessee has benchmarked the sale

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

297,346/– no interest was charged. The learned transfer pricing officer did not accept the benchmarking methodology for sale of pharmaceutical products as well as noncharging of interest on unsecured loan to its subsidiaries. 085. With respect to the sale of pharmaceutical products the assessee has sold finished goods to its AE during the year. Assessee has benchmarked the sale

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

297,346/– no interest was charged. The learned transfer pricing officer did not accept the benchmarking methodology for sale of pharmaceutical products as well as noncharging of interest on unsecured loan to its subsidiaries. 085. With respect to the sale of pharmaceutical products the assessee has sold finished goods to its AE during the year. Assessee has benchmarked the sale

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

297,346/– no interest was charged. The learned transfer pricing officer did not accept the benchmarking methodology for sale of pharmaceutical products as well as noncharging of interest on unsecured loan to its subsidiaries. 085. With respect to the sale of pharmaceutical products the assessee has sold finished goods to its AE during the year. Assessee has benchmarked the sale

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

297,346/– no interest was charged. The learned transfer pricing officer did not accept the benchmarking methodology for sale of pharmaceutical products as well as noncharging of interest on unsecured loan to its subsidiaries. 085. With respect to the sale of pharmaceutical products the assessee has sold finished goods to its AE during the year. Assessee has benchmarked the sale

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at ` 5,68,97,341. 144. The assessee is engaged in the business of broadcasting and telecasting of television channels. Accordingly, it incurs up–linking charges in connection with its broadcasting business. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee paid ` 5,68,97,341, towards up–linking fees to Television Eighteen India

THE ACIT RG 10(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

297, CST Road Vidyanagri, Kalina ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 098 PAN – AAACE4738J Revenue by : Shri Manish Kumar Singh Assessee by : Shri K.K. Ved Date of Hearing – 29.01.2019 Date of Order – 25.04.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. The aforesaid appeals pertaining to the same assessee have been filed by the Revenue challenging three separate orders passed

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (l) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (l) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

section 37(1) of the Act. 28. Before we proceed further, let us understand the Lease transaction and its recording in the books as per Accounting Standard, the leases are classified as Finance Lease and Operating Lease. As per the accounting standards a lease is classified as Finance Lease if the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (l) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

WARBURG PINCUS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 6981/Mum./2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008–09) Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Express Towers ……………. Appellant Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaacw5205E V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–3(3), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020

297 (Mum.). 22. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the DRP. 23. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record in the light of the decisions relied upon. The fundamental reasons for which the assessee wants exclusion of this company are, it has no revenue from

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (l) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (l) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

section 44C of the Act. It was submitted that section 44C of the Act deals with the allowability of the head office administrative expenses. Accordingly, it was submitted that the expenses incurred by the assessee are out of the scope of provision of section 44C as these expenses are not in the nature of general administrative expenses but are solely