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

64,62,649/-. The Ld. AO also computed the book profits\nu/s 115JB of the Act by including the disallowance made u/s\n14A.\n Assessment Year 2010-11\n6. From the Transfer Pricing study report the Ld. TPO noted that\nassessee used transactional net margin method to compute the\nmargin of the services rendered under Data Processing Service\nand Software

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

64. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, since the assessee itself had selected it as a comparable in transfer pricing study report, subsequently, it cannot claim that the company is functionally dissimilar. He submitted, before the Departmental Authorities assessee has failed to demonstrate how the company is functionally different. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude the company as a comparable

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 40A(3)of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was computed at ₹64,78,14,863/- by order dated 14th February, 2011. 073. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 12th December, 2011. The learned CIT (A) considering the transfer pricing

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 40A(3)of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was computed at ₹64,78,14,863/- by order dated 14th February, 2011. 073. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 12th December, 2011. The learned CIT (A) considering the transfer pricing

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 40A(3)of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was computed at ₹64,78,14,863/- by order dated 14th February, 2011. 073. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 12th December, 2011. The learned CIT (A) considering the transfer pricing

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 40A(3)of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was computed at ₹64,78,14,863/- by order dated 14th February, 2011. 073. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 12th December, 2011. The learned CIT (A) considering the transfer pricing

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 40A(3)of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was computed at ₹64,78,14,863/- by order dated 14th February, 2011. 073. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 12th December, 2011. The learned CIT (A) considering the transfer pricing

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 40A(3)of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was computed at ₹64,78,14,863/- by order dated 14th February, 2011. 073. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 12th December, 2011. The learned CIT (A) considering the transfer pricing

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 40A(3)of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was computed at ₹64,78,14,863/- by order dated 14th February, 2011. 073. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 12th December, 2011. The learned CIT (A) considering the transfer pricing

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 40A(3)of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was computed at ₹64,78,14,863/- by order dated 14th February, 2011. 073. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 12th December, 2011. The learned CIT (A) considering the transfer pricing

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 40A(3)of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was computed at ₹64,78,14,863/- by order dated 14th February, 2011. 073. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 12th December, 2011. The learned CIT (A) considering the transfer pricing

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 40A(3)of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was computed at ₹64,78,14,863/- by order dated 14th February, 2011. 073. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 12th December, 2011. The learned CIT (A) considering the transfer pricing

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

64. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, since the assessee itself had selected it as a comparable in the transfer pricing study report, it should not be excluded. 65. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a perusal of the annual report of the company

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.

section 153 is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the final assessment order dated 2 April 2014 is time barred and liable to be quashed. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR has submitted that the grounds of appeal no. 1 to 24 pertains to transfer pricing issues and ground

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 delete the addition on account of excessive purchase price as it is already benchmarked once under TNMM/RPM, as under 69. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals), inadvertently dismissed the ground, whereas it was to be allowed following DRP direction. Hence, the based on the above order, adjustment on account of excessive purchase price amounting to INR 2,64

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

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

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaljohnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr Opp. Majas Bus Depot ……………. Appellant Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai 400 060 Pan – Aaacj0866E V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Ltu–1, Mumbai Assesseeby : Shri Rajan R. Vora A/W Shri Pranay Gandhi & Shri Harshvardhan Aggarwal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 92C (1) which sets out the different methods of determining the ALP, makes it clear that the transfer pricing adjustment is made by substituting the ALP for the price of the transaction. To begin with there has to be an international transaction with a certain disclosed price. The transfer pricing adjustment envisages the substitution of the price of such