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

transfer pricing adjustment to the extent of Rs. 42,181,115 for the international transaction pertaining to provision of Information Technology enabled services to its AE and in re-computing the arm's length price under the Transactional Net Margin Method, inter alia, on following grounds: i. Rejecting the functional analysis, search process adopted and documentation maintained by the Appellant

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

9. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. As could be seen from Page–18 of the Transfer Pricing Officer’s order, he has applied certain filters for selecting comparables from the data bases. One of the filter applied by the Transfer Pricing Officer is companies whose on–site revenue is more than 60% of the export

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

9,01,18,424/-\nProvision of data processing services\nProvision of software development 06,39,10,887/- | 5,95,81,859/-\nservices\n Assessment Year 2009-10\n3. From the transfer pricing study report, the Ld. TPO noted that,\nassessee used Transactional Net Margin Method as the most\nappropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute its margin\nunder both

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

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel–I (DRP), Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment years 2009–10 and 2010–11. ITA no.1671/Mum./2014 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2009–10 2. Shri P.J. Pardiwala, learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that grounds

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

section 92C 8 ITA 6081/Mum/2018 r.w.r.10B, the arms length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by adopting any one method thereunder and not by adopting two methods as the most appropriate method. The assessee has also argued for not adopting as most appropriate method, as per which, the price at which finished goods are exported

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

price (ALP) u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 56, Mumbai (CIT (A)) erred in confirming following additions made by the Asst Commissioner of income tax (LTU), Mumbai (AO) u/s 92CA (3) of the act on account of adjustment in arm’s-length price (ALP) pursuant

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

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel–III (DRP), Mumbai. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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.

transfer pricing order passed in 29/Mum/2018 & CO No. 21/Mum/2019 M/s. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. this case under section 92CA of the Act is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) read with section 153 of the Act rendering the TP order illegal, null and void ab-initio and liable to be quashed”. So we would first decide this

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

9 and is in-fact contrary to the facts brought to his notice. It has been explained that the observation of the Transfer Pricing Officer is based on sales instances tabulated by him at the end of para 6.4 of his order. It is pointed out that the Transfer Pricing Officer has wrongly assumed that the instances of such sales