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

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

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 to relief granted in respect of the aforesaid grounds\nof appeal.\nGround 6- Levy of interest under section 234D of the Act\n6.1. On the facts and in the circumstances

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)

6. Chargeable because of section 112A read with section 45 read with section 48 read with Explanation (a)(iii) (AA) to section 55(2)(ac) of the Act. [This position is similar to the position FROM the insertion of certain assets under section 55(2)(a) defining cost of acquisition of certain assets as Nil and the capital gain getting

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

2) is a separate matter. The issue is non-production when called for by Transfer Pricing Officer and for this reasonable cause is to be established. 13. The sole factual reason adduced is the appointment of CFO. The new CFO has been appointed one month prior to same. Hence the non-production of the same before Transfer Pricing Officer

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

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

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

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 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.” “Facts relating

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

6,61,98,008/-. iii. Assessee has also unit at Dheradun, which is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act, the deduction of ₹65,08,61,369/- was claimed. There is also Assessing Officer found that the incentive of ₹2,59,062 was reduced from material cost and further empty container sale of ₹13,13,310 was wrongly

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

6,61,98,008/-. iii. Assessee has also unit at Dheradun, which is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act, the deduction of ₹65,08,61,369/- was claimed. There is also Assessing Officer found that the incentive of ₹2,59,062 was reduced from material cost and further empty container sale of ₹13,13,310 was wrongly

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

6,61,98,008/-. iii. Assessee has also unit at Dheradun, which is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act, the deduction of ₹65,08,61,369/- was claimed. There is also Assessing Officer found that the incentive of ₹2,59,062 was reduced from material cost and further empty container sale of ₹13,13,310 was wrongly

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

6,61,98,008/-. iii. Assessee has also unit at Dheradun, which is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act, the deduction of ₹65,08,61,369/- was claimed. There is also Assessing Officer found that the incentive of ₹2,59,062 was reduced from material cost and further empty container sale of ₹13,13,310 was wrongly

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

6,61,98,008/-. iii. Assessee has also unit at Dheradun, which is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act, the deduction of ₹65,08,61,369/- was claimed. There is also Assessing Officer found that the incentive of ₹2,59,062 was reduced from material cost and further empty container sale of ₹13,13,310 was wrongly

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

6,61,98,008/-. iii. Assessee has also unit at Dheradun, which is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act, the deduction of ₹65,08,61,369/- was claimed. There is also Assessing Officer found that the incentive of ₹2,59,062 was reduced from material cost and further empty container sale of ₹13,13,310 was wrongly

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

6,61,98,008/-. iii. Assessee has also unit at Dheradun, which is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act, the deduction of ₹65,08,61,369/- was claimed. There is also Assessing Officer found that the incentive of ₹2,59,062 was reduced from material cost and further empty container sale of ₹13,13,310 was wrongly

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

6,61,98,008/-. iii. Assessee has also unit at Dheradun, which is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act, the deduction of ₹65,08,61,369/- was claimed. There is also Assessing Officer found that the incentive of ₹2,59,062 was reduced from material cost and further empty container sale of ₹13,13,310 was wrongly

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

6,61,98,008/-. iii. Assessee has also unit at Dheradun, which is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act, the deduction of ₹65,08,61,369/- was claimed. There is also Assessing Officer found that the incentive of ₹2,59,062 was reduced from material cost and further empty container sale of ₹13,13,310 was wrongly