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

58,618 under section 234D of the Act for 42\nmonths, whereas he should have charged interest for only 38 months\n(December 2010 to January 2014).\n6.3. The AO erred in facts and in law in not taking into account that\nrefund of Rs. 55,17,230 pertaining to AY 2009-10 was adjusted on 4\nDecember 2010 against

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

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

58,078/- was proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section

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

58,078/- was proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section

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

58,078/- was proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section

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

58,078/- was proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section

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

58,078/- was proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section

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

58,078/- was proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section

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

58,078/- was proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section

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

58,078/- was proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section

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

58,078/- was proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section

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

58,078/- was proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section

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

58. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, though, the assessee might have selected the company as a comparable on the basis of limited data available in public domain, however, subsequently more information came into the public domain which indicated that the company is functionally different from ITeS provider. Thus, he submitted, only because the assessee had selected it in the transfer

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

M/S. INDIA MEDTRONICS PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

Transfer Pricing Officer to verify whether there was any involvement of the Assessee in the direct sales 21 ITA No.480/Ahd/2011 & ITA No.3361/Ahd/2010 – India Medtronic Private limited. made by the AE in India. Similar view was expressed by the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessment years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2007-08. Following the consistent view of the Tribunal

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. GLOBE OP FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 143(3) adding the amount of ` 2,62,84,830. Being aggrieved of the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee and on a perusal of the material on record, accepted the contention of the assessee that two companies selected

VFS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2009–10, pursuant to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)–II, Mumbai. 2. Ground no.1, being general in nature, there is no need to adjudicate the same. 3. At the outset, learned Authorised Representative submitted, he did not wish to press grounds