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

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 Pricing, 1(1), Mumbai. The international transactions of the assessee were

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

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 Pricing, 1(1), Mumbai. The international transactions of the assessee were

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

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 Pricing, 1(1), Mumbai. The international transactions of the assessee were

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

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 Pricing, 1(1), Mumbai. The international transactions of the assessee were

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

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 Pricing, 1(1), Mumbai. The international transactions of the assessee were

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

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 Pricing, 1(1), Mumbai. The international transactions of the assessee were

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

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 Pricing, 1(1), Mumbai. The international transactions of the assessee were

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

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 Pricing, 1(1), Mumbai. The international transactions of the assessee were

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

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 Pricing, 1(1), Mumbai. The international transactions of the assessee were

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer certainly cannot determine the arm's length price on ad–hoc / estimation basis. Our reasoning in paragraph 11 to 15 will equally apply to this issue also. Accordingly, we delete the adjustment made to the arm's length price of payment made towards availing information system services from AE. This ground is allowed. 22. Grounds no.3

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

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), the Appellant respectfully submits that the learned A0 erred in passing the order on the following grounds: 1. In making an upward transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 946,786,679 in determining the arms length pricing (ALP) of the international transactions pertaining to (a) investment advisory services in respect

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-2(3)(1) Mumbai. Assessment year 2014-15 Page 7 of 17 The above notice was to be complied with within 30 days under section 92D(3) and further on an application, it can be extended by 30 days in accordance with the proviso to said section. 6

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

6. Aggrieved by the directions of the DRP, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground 1 of the appeal is transfer pricing adjustment in relation to export of finished goods. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee has exported finished goods

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. The transfer pricing order dated 30 January 2013 passed by the learned Additional Director of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing - (6), Mumbai (the ‘learned Transfer Pricing Officer’), is void and bad in law as it has been passed beyond the period of limitation under section

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

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 benchmarked

SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1075/Mum./2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011–12) Solar Turbines India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Turbomach India P. Ltd.), 401, 402, 403, 4Th Floor ……………. Appellant Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan – Aabct7422R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde A/W Shri Ketan Ved रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 02.01.2017 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2011–12, in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced below:– “1. The learned Assessing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel / Transfer Pricing Officer have erred in making transfer pricing adjustment

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

1) ('Transfer Pricing Officer') under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA (3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act thus making the transfer pricing order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. Additional Ground No. 2: On the facts and in the circumstances