FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

5 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act\n5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO\nhas erred in charging interest of Rs. 2,81,17,008.\nThe Appellant prays that the AO be directed to grant relief in\nrespect of levy of interest under section 234B of the Act, in\nconsequence

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

5% of the average arithmetic mean of the comparables, the price charged to the A.E. was claimed to be at arm’s length. The Transfer Pricing Officer, however, did not accept the claim of the assessee. He was of the view that the services provided by the assessee under the IPSA is in the nature of ITES, hence

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)

5. Chargeable because of section 112A read with section 45 read with section 48 of the Act but eventually NOT TAXABLE due of the absence of any mechanism for determining the cost of acquisition since, computation of Fair Value as per Section 55(2)(ac) falls and the said mechanism was later introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 through

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 15/02/2012. 2 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- “1. Addition on account of Arm's Length Price by TPO Rs. 24,91,59,200/- (i) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding rejection

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

transfer price, and in the case of such significant change, fresh documentation as may be necessary under sub-rules (1), (2) and (2A) shall be maintained bringing out the impact of the change on the pricing of the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction. (5) The information and documents specified in sub-rules (1), (2) and (2A) shall

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

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

2 and 6, being general in nature, do not require adjudication. 55. In grounds no.13 to 19, the assessee has challenged selection / rejection of certain comparables under Information Technology (IT) Service and Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) segments. At first, we will deal with the comparables disputed under Information Technology Service segment. 56. In its transfer pricing analysis, the assessee

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. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment to the transaction of exports to AEs by comparing ALP and appellants price on a product by product basis and not on set of transactions with one particular AE and failed to follow principles of aggregation which is well established rule in transfer pricing analysis and the OECD guidelines which advocates aggregation

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. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment to the transaction of exports to AEs by comparing ALP and appellants price on a product by product basis and not on set of transactions with one particular AE and failed to follow principles of aggregation which is well established rule in transfer pricing analysis and the OECD guidelines which advocates aggregation

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. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment to the transaction of exports to AEs by comparing ALP and appellants price on a product by product basis and not on set of transactions with one particular AE and failed to follow principles of aggregation which is well established rule in transfer pricing analysis and the OECD guidelines which advocates aggregation

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. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment to the transaction of exports to AEs by comparing ALP and appellants price on a product by product basis and not on set of transactions with one particular AE and failed to follow principles of aggregation which is well established rule in transfer pricing analysis and the OECD guidelines which advocates aggregation

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. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment to the transaction of exports to AEs by comparing ALP and appellants price on a product by product basis and not on set of transactions with one particular AE and failed to follow principles of aggregation which is well established rule in transfer pricing analysis and the OECD guidelines which advocates aggregation

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. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment to the transaction of exports to AEs by comparing ALP and appellants price on a product by product basis and not on set of transactions with one particular AE and failed to follow principles of aggregation which is well established rule in transfer pricing analysis and the OECD guidelines which advocates aggregation

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. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment to the transaction of exports to AEs by comparing ALP and appellants price on a product by product basis and not on set of transactions with one particular AE and failed to follow principles of aggregation which is well established rule in transfer pricing analysis and the OECD guidelines which advocates aggregation

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. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment to the transaction of exports to AEs by comparing ALP and appellants price on a product by product basis and not on set of transactions with one particular AE and failed to follow principles of aggregation which is well established rule in transfer pricing analysis and the OECD guidelines which advocates aggregation

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. (i) The AO erred in making adjustment to the transaction of exports to AEs by comparing ALP and appellants price on a product by product basis and not on set of transactions with one particular AE and failed to follow principles of aggregation which is well established rule in transfer pricing analysis and the OECD guidelines which advocates aggregation