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

36. We have heard the rival contentions carefully in the light of the facts and material on record as well as the decisions relied upon by both the parties. At this stage, we must observe, in the earlier part of the order, we have disapproved the approach of the Transfer Pricing Officer in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis

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

2. Brief facts are, the assessee an Indian Company is a subsidiary of M/s. Beaumont Development Centre Holding Ltd. and part of the Accenture Group. The assessee is basically providing Software Development Services (SDS), Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) and Consultancy Services (CS) to its group entities worldwide. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove." 7. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove." 7. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

36. The intention of the Section 55(2)(ac) can be gauged by the Finance Minister‟s speech while introducing this amendment unambiguously reflected the legislative policy that all appreciation till 31 January 2018 would be excluded from taxation. He illustrated this by stating that if an equity share purchased at ₹100 prior to that date

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

36. Brief facts are, in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee claimed deduction under sections 10A / 10AA of the Act unit–wise against the profit earned by the respective STPI/SEZ units. In respect of STPI/SEZ units which suffered losses, the assessee did not claim any deduction under sections 10A/10AA of the Act. The Assessing

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

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 the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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 the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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 the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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 the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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 the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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 the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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 the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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 the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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

2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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 the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against the order passed by the Commissioner

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.

2,54,56,000 as against Rs 1,36,34,299 computed by the Appellant; Levy of Interest under section 234C of the Act 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