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

transfer pricing officer is directed to charge interest at the rate of labor+ 200 basis points. 098. Accordingly ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 099. Ground number 2 of the appeal is with respect to the allowability of deduction on empty containers sold of ₹ 1,027,691/– at Dehradun unit which is eligible for deduction

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

transfer pricing officer is directed to charge interest at the rate of labor+ 200 basis points. 098. Accordingly ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 099. Ground number 2 of the appeal is with respect to the allowability of deduction on empty containers sold of ₹ 1,027,691/– at Dehradun unit which is eligible for deduction

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

transfer pricing officer is directed to charge interest at the rate of labor+ 200 basis points. 098. Accordingly ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 099. Ground number 2 of the appeal is with respect to the allowability of deduction on empty containers sold of ₹ 1,027,691/– at Dehradun unit which is eligible for deduction

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

transfer pricing officer is directed to charge interest at the rate of labor+ 200 basis points. 098. Accordingly ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 099. Ground number 2 of the appeal is with respect to the allowability of deduction on empty containers sold of ₹ 1,027,691/– at Dehradun unit which is eligible for deduction

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

transfer pricing officer is directed to charge interest at the rate of labor+ 200 basis points. 098. Accordingly ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 099. Ground number 2 of the appeal is with respect to the allowability of deduction on empty containers sold of ₹ 1,027,691/– at Dehradun unit which is eligible for deduction

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

transfer pricing officer is directed to charge interest at the rate of labor+ 200 basis points. 098. Accordingly ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 099. Ground number 2 of the appeal is with respect to the allowability of deduction on empty containers sold of ₹ 1,027,691/– at Dehradun unit which is eligible for deduction

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

transfer pricing officer is directed to charge interest at the rate of labor+ 200 basis points. 098. Accordingly ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 099. Ground number 2 of the appeal is with respect to the allowability of deduction on empty containers sold of ₹ 1,027,691/– at Dehradun unit which is eligible for deduction

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

transfer pricing officer is directed to charge interest at the rate of labor+ 200 basis points. 098. Accordingly ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 099. Ground number 2 of the appeal is with respect to the allowability of deduction on empty containers sold of ₹ 1,027,691/– at Dehradun unit which is eligible for deduction

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

transfer pricing officer is directed to charge interest at the rate of labor+ 200 basis points. 098. Accordingly ground number 1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 099. Ground number 2 of the appeal is with respect to the allowability of deduction on empty containers sold of ₹ 1,027,691/– at Dehradun unit which is eligible for deduction

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

section 133(6) of the Act was made available to the assessee. He has not properly evaluated all the objections of the assessee. The DRP also upheld the finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer by simply observing that the services provided by the company are largely in the nature of software services. Notably, in case of Invensys Development Centre India

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 10A of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned AU erred in reducing the telecommunication charges only from the export turnover and not from both, i.e total turnover and export turnover, in computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

32(1)(ii) of the Act was disallowed by the AO.\n8.\nThe learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised\nby the assessee on this issue and held that there is no evidence on record\nnor any evidence being adduced by the assessee to even suggest that under\nthe Scheme of Amalgamation approved

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 8 ITA 6081/Mum/2018 r.w.r.10B, the arms length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by adopting any one method thereunder and not by adopting two methods as the most appropriate method. The assessee has also argued for not adopting as most appropriate method, as per which, the price at which finished goods are exported

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

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

32 (1) of The Income Tax Act. The AO further submitted that the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 722/BANG/2014 [ United Breweries Limited] for assessment year 2007 – 08 held that an amalgamated company cannot claim depreciation on the assets acquired in the scheme of amalgamation including goodwill, more than that which is permitted to the amalgamating company. With

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

32 (1) of The Income Tax Act. The AO further submitted that the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 722/BANG/2014 [ United Breweries Limited] for assessment year 2007 – 08 held that an amalgamated company cannot claim depreciation on the assets acquired in the scheme of amalgamation including goodwill, more than that which is permitted to the amalgamating company. With

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

32(1)(ii) of the Act was disallowed by the AO.\n8.\nThe learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised\nby the assessee on this issue and held that there is no evidence on record\nnor any evidence being adduced by the assessee to even suggest that under\nthe Scheme of Amalgamation approved

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, we do not intend to deal with the acceptability or otherwise of the rest of the comparables disputed before us under ITES segment and leave the issue relating to comparability of these comparables open for adjudication if they arise in any other assessment year in future. 84. Ground no.7, of this appeal is identical to ground no.6