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

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 benchmarked the international transaction with the AE by applying TNMM

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 (*TP') adjustment in relation to export of finished goods 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/TPO in determining the Arms' Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction of export of finished goods at Rs. 10,35,77,048 instead

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)

price on a recognised stock exchange as on 31 January 2018. 37. The relevant proviso of Section 55 of the Act as were applicable on the date when OFS transaction was undertaken is as under:- (2) For the purposes of sections 48 and 49, "cost of acquisition"ー 24 Ramesh Jaisinghani ………………………………………………………………………… (aa) in a case where, by virtue of holding

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

55,637/– after claiming the deduction under Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

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

55,637/– after claiming the deduction under Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

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

55,637/– after claiming the deduction under Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

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

55,637/– after claiming the deduction under Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

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

55,637/– after claiming the deduction under Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

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

55,637/– after claiming the deduction under Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

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

55,637/– after claiming the deduction under Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

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

55,637/– after claiming the deduction under Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

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

55,637/– after claiming the deduction under Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

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

55,637/– after claiming the deduction under Section 80IB of `30,66,334/–. The return was revised on 27th March, 2008 at `19,06,13,100/–. As the assessee has entered into international transaction, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter for determination of arm's length price to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

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

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel–III (DRP), Mumbai. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

M/S. MERCATOR LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

transfer pricing study report, submissions, the comparables and passed the order U/sec92CA of the Act on 30.01.2014 with the T.P adjustments as under: S.No Nature of TP adjustment Amount 1 Arm’s Length interest on loan Advanced 34,35,01,289 to the AEs 2 Arm’s Length Guarantee Fee on 8,10,96,267 corporate guarantee extended

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Transfer Pricing Officer without proper FAR analysis, without applying any most appropriate method and without considering any comparable is not justified. In support of his submissions, the learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:– i) CIT v Lever India Exports Ltd ITA No 1306 of 2014, order dated 23.01.2017 (Bom); ii) CIT V Merck

SABMILLER INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

section 92 of the Act, he submitted, it empowers the Assessing Officer to determine the arm's length price of benefit, service or facilities. He submitted, there is no restriction imposed on the Transfer Pricing Officer to only determine the arm's length price or cost of expenditure allocated. He submitted, the cost or expenditure allocated or apportioned