Search: transfer pricing

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2590/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafnaa/wFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules. However, the aforesaid exercise of determining the ALP in respect of the royalty payable for technical knowhow has not been carried out as required under the Act. Further, as held by the CIT(A) and upheld by the impugned order of the Tribunal

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7686/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwallaa/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

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

ITA 6912/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(2)

43. Insofar as five other companies selected by the assessee viz. Aryaman Financial Services Ltd., Excess India Advisors India Ltd., ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd., ICRA On–line Limited, Kinetic Trust Ltd., on a perusal of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer, we find, he has neither made any discussion on these companies nor has assigned any reason

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

ITA 3406/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: S/Shri N.K.Chand &

Section 143(3)

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 that for the purposes of this clause— (a) a contract in respect

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1671/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalaa/w Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

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

ITA 6081/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

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 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3811/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8084/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2493/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8120/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2815/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7511/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3691/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

J.P MORGAN ADVISORS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 990/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

43. In ground no.4, the assessee has challenged the addition made of ` 5,85,288, on account of adjustment made to the price charged for the provisions of Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES). 44. Brief facts are, during the year under consideration assessee provided support services to its AEs in respect of building MS Access databases and MS Excel work

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 720/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Nishant Thakkar, RishiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, D.R

Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 28Section 43CSection 92Section 92(1)Section 92CSection 92C(4)Section 92E

transfer pricing provisions begin from section 92 and end at section 92F; that they are contained in Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, in the special provisions relating to avoidance of tax; and that as such, it is not correct to interpret that the scheme of Tonnage Tax will override the provisions of sections

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

ITA 1994/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 92C

transfer pricing officer with similar direction. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 036. This is the solitary issue in the appeal of assessee, therefore appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 037. The learned assessing officer has preferred cross objection and raised following grounds:- CO 180/MUM/2019 Arising out of ITA 588/MUM/2017

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(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

ITA 462/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 92C

transfer pricing officer with similar direction. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 036. This is the solitary issue in the appeal of assessee, therefore appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 037. The learned assessing officer has preferred cross objection and raised following grounds:- CO 180/MUM/2019 Arising out of ITA 588/MUM/2017