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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 Plan (ESOP) scheme and allowed 88,750/- equity shares at exercise price of ₹200. Accordingly, ₹2,89,90,715/- is debited to the profit

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 Plan (ESOP) scheme and allowed 88,750/- equity shares at exercise price of ₹200. Accordingly, ₹2,89,90,715/- is debited to the profit

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 Plan (ESOP) scheme and allowed 88,750/- equity shares at exercise price of ₹200. Accordingly, ₹2,89,90,715/- is debited to the profit

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 Plan (ESOP) scheme and allowed 88,750/- equity shares at exercise price of ₹200. Accordingly, ₹2,89,90,715/- is debited to the profit

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 Plan (ESOP) scheme and allowed 88,750/- equity shares at exercise price of ₹200. Accordingly, ₹2,89,90,715/- is debited to the profit

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 Plan (ESOP) scheme and allowed 88,750/- equity shares at exercise price of ₹200. Accordingly, ₹2,89,90,715/- is debited to the profit

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 Plan (ESOP) scheme and allowed 88,750/- equity shares at exercise price of ₹200. Accordingly, ₹2,89,90,715/- is debited to the profit

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 Plan (ESOP) scheme and allowed 88,750/- equity shares at exercise price of ₹200. Accordingly, ₹2,89,90,715/- is debited to the profit

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 37(1) of the Act in the absence of any evidence to suggest transfer of technical knowhow during the year. Having held so, the Transfer Pricing

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

1,83,27,826, was treated as the adjustment made to the arm's length price. 49. Being aggrieved of such adjustment, the assessee raised objections before the DRP. However, the DRP concurred with the view of the Transfer Pricing Officer. 50. The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, since, a part of the services rendered under the IPSA

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

Transfer Pricing Officer in Page–37 of his order submitted, assessee also provides high end information technology enabled services, hence, assessee’s objections should not be accepted. 67. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. We have noted that the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in Symphony Marketing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after

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 37(1) of the Act in the absence of any evidence to suggest transfer of technical knowhow during the year. Having held so, the Transfer Pricing

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

price whichever is lower, and it is now generally accepted as an established rule of commercial practice and accountancy. As profits for income-tax purposes are to be computed in conformity with the ordinary principles of commercial accounting, unless of course, such principles have been superseded or modified by legislative enactments unrealised profits in the shape of appreciated value

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

price of shares and did not result in any real outflow or accrued liability. The failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the factual and legal sustainability of the claim under section 37(1) was treated as a serious lapse. (4) In so far as the deduction under section 80G amounting to ₹7,22,00,000/- was concerned, the learned

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

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

37(1) of the Act. As per Ld. Representative for the assessee, the aforesaid loss of Rs.26,73,93,000/- was not in the nature of ‘speculation’ as envisaged under section 43(5) of the Act. Accordingly to him, provisions of section 43(5) of the Act are attracted only to transactions which, inter-alia, involve a contract for purchase