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

transfer pricing analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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

transfer pricing analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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

transfer pricing analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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

transfer pricing analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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

transfer pricing analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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

transfer pricing analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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

transfer pricing analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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

transfer pricing analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

DCIT , CC- 2(4), MUMBAI vs. MACELODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

801C by inter unit transfer of material at lower prices. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings in a case which 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings in a case which has been highly litigated.” has been highly litigated.” 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company

MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

801C by inter unit transfer of material at lower prices. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings in a case which 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings in a case which has been highly litigated.” has been highly litigated.” 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company

GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES 1. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in confirming the M/s Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai. action of the Assessing Officer in computing the deduction under Section 801C

GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

801C of the Act claimed by the eligible units of the Appellant, by excluding transport subsidy, transport recoveries, claims received, miscellaneous income, sundry balances written back and net gain on exchange difference forming part of the 'Other Income of such eligible units and in reducing the deduction claimed accordingly. 2) The learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in confirming the action

ANCHOR ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CEN.CIR.41, MUMBAI

In the result of appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

transfer pricing principles. 5. Benefit Test On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP / AO / TPO erred in not appreciating the benefits received/ receivable by the Appellant on account of usage of brand name/ trademarks owned by its AE, MEW. Incorrect application of CUP method for benchmarking 6. purposes On the facts

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 37(1) of the Act. It is trite that assessment proceedings before taxing authority are to assess correct tax liability. However, in the present case, the AO as well as learned DRP did not entertain the claim of the assessee in view of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), without going into the merits

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of the Act dated 09.01.2015 computing a TP Adjustment towards performance guarantee at Rs. 5,26,17,801/-. The AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of the Act dated 09.01.2015 computing a TP Adjustment towards performance guarantee at Rs. 5,26,17,801/-. The AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Transfer Pricing Officer's order u/s 92CA on account of the determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) on international transactions with an Associated Enterprise rejecting the contention of the Appellant that the same was not warranted on facts and in law. The order passed by the learned TPO u/s 92CA 5 M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited is contrary

DCIT CIR 7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathapiramal Enterprise Limited Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(3) (Formerly Known As Piramal Aaykar Bhawan Healthcare Limited) M.K.Road Piramal Tower Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013

801C by allocating Research and development expenditure of Rs.11,23,00,000/- and interest expenditure of Rs. 1 1,02,00,000/- to fee Baddi unit eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC on the alleged ground that such expenditure are attributable to the said Baddi Unit. 2. The AO failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the • Research