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

Transfer Pricing Officer himself has allowed working capital adjustment to the assessee. That being the case, we direct the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to consider assessee’s claim of working capital adjustment while computing the margins of the comparables.” 34. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider assessee’s claim of working capital adjustment keeping

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

Transfer Pricing Officer certainly cannot determine the arm's length price on ad–hoc / estimation basis. Our reasoning in paragraph 11 to 15 will equally apply to this issue also. Accordingly, we delete the adjustment made to the arm's length price of payment made towards availing information system services from AE. This ground is allowed.” “Facts relating

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

42. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Though, the assessee itself has selected this company as a comparable in its transfer pricing study report which was accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer and before learned DRP also, the assessee has not raised any objections

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

42 11.5 In this background, we may, at the outset refer to section 43(5), which reads as under:- “(5) "speculative transaction" means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrips: Provided

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 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act. Relief Relief Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before or during the hearing of the learned DRP be deleted. The Appellant prays that the addition made by the learned AO and TPO and upheld by the learned

PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

Pricing Officer. 022. Ground no.3 and ground no.4 are with respect to depreciation on goodwill. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deprecation on goodwill amounting to ₹11,73,198/-. The learned Assessing Officer made the above disallowances on protective assessment manner. The assessee company entered into business transfer agreement with M/s Ambience Advertisement Pvt. Ltd. for ₹6.25 crores. This

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

Pricing Officer. 022. Ground no.3 and ground no.4 are with respect to depreciation on goodwill. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deprecation on goodwill amounting to ₹11,73,198/-. The learned Assessing Officer made the above disallowances on protective assessment manner. The assessee company entered into business transfer agreement with M/s Ambience Advertisement Pvt. Ltd. for ₹6.25 crores. This