SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

50, arising on transfer of long term capital assets, at the rates mentioned in section 112 of the Act instead of charging them at the normal rates as has been done by the AO.” ITA No. 1022/Mum/2025 – Revenue “1. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of Rs.3

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

50, arising on transfer of long term capital assets, at the\nrates mentioned in section 112 of the Act instead of charging them at the normal\nrates as has been done by the AO.\"\n3\nITA Nos.261 & 1022/Mum/2025\nSamir Narain Bhojwani\nITA No. 1022/Mum/2025 – Revenue\n1. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT

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

2. 66.00% Edelweiss Capital Ltd. 3. 13.88% IDC India Ltd. 4. 184.91% L&T Capital Co. Ltd. 5. 6.51% SERI Capital Markets Ltd. 6. Sumedha Fiscal Service Ltd. 48.84% 7. (segmental) Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. 209.19% 8. (segmental) 105.10% Arithmetic mean 8. Applying the arithmetic mean of 105.10%, the Transfer Pricing Officer worked out the arm's length price

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

50. The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, since, a part of the services rendered under the IPSA was neither in the nature of software development or ITES the assessee benchmarked it separately. He submitted, for that reason also the assessee did not claim deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of the revenue earned from that

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)

50(2)(ec) of the Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 with retrospective effect from 1 April 2018 is applicable to present case of transfer of shares under OFS in AY 2020-21 without appreciating that the amendment being substantive in nature ought to be applied prospectively Le it should be applied to OFS transactions after 22 July

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

transferred by the assessee is not at all a depreciable asset and thus, the question of claiming depreciation on the same does not arise. 27. In the perception of the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Accountant Member, the above interpretation of the statute will lead to allowance of double deduction to the assessee, which is not permitted under

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 Pricing Officer in levying penalty of Rs 50,97,0400 under section 271G r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in relation to the international and specified domestic transactions undertaken by the appellant.” 2

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

50. Ground no.1, has already been dealt with while deciding grounds no.10 and 15 of assessee’s appeal in ITA no.1671/Mum./2014, in the earlier part of the order. Therefore, separate adjudication is not required. 51. In ground no.2,the Revenue has challenged the decision of learned DRP in directing that the adjustment to be made by the Transfer Pricing

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 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

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories

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

sections 092. Accordingly total income was assessed at ₹ 331,392,165 against the returned income of ₹ 278,678,540/-. 093. The assessee aggrieved with assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer based on the order of the learned transfer pricing officer was confirmed Ipca Laboratories