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 154 of the Act on 17th November 2011. Thus, on the basis of the margin computed of the comparable companies an adjustment of `239,02,52,498, was made to the arm's length price. 3. As regards ITES segment, during the proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer the assessee furnished a fresh list of 15 comparables under Transactional

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

10% of the amount paid by the assessee on mere assumption and presumption and without any reasonable basis cannot be upheld. Unfortunately, the DRP has not examined the issue in proper perspective keeping in view the relevant statutory provisions. Having held so, it is necessary to deal with the Transfer Pricing Officer’s alternative bench marking under CUP method. Though

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 10A of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned AU erred in reducing the telecommunication charges only from the export turnover and not from both, i.e total turnover and export turnover, in computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend

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

38 months\n(December 2010 to January 2014).\n6.3. The AO erred in facts and in law in not taking into account that\nrefund of Rs. 55,17,230 pertaining to AY 2009-10 was adjusted on 4\nDecember 2010 against demand of AY 2006-07 and interest under\nsection 234D would arise from 4 December

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

10 as provided by the Transfer Pricing Officer is also placed in the paper book filed before us. On a perusal of the said information, it is very much clear that the financial result for the financial year 2008– 09 corresponding to the financial year followed by the assessee was very much available with the Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, there

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 (*TP') adjustment in relation to export of finished goods 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/TPO in determining the Arms' Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction of export of finished goods at Rs. 10,35,77,048 instead

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

38,15,254, as against the price charged by the assessee at ` 32,52,031. The resultant short fall of ` 5,85,288, was treated as the adjustment to the arm's length price. The aforesaid adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was added back in the draft assessment order. 45. Though, the assessee raised objections before learned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

transfer of long term securities (Illustrations) Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee filed its return for relevant year - Subsequently, pursuant to a survey assessee filed revised return and claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

transfer of long term securities (Illustrations) Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee filed its return for relevant year - Subsequently, pursuant to a survey assessee filed revised return and claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements

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

38,54,894/- and book profit was computed at ₹177,24,08,742/- by order dated 2nd February 2012. 011. Assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). He passed an order on 11th February 2015. The learned CIT (A) held that; i. With respect to the transfer pricing adjustment

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

38,54,894/- and book profit was computed at ₹177,24,08,742/- by order dated 2nd February 2012. 011. Assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). He passed an order on 11th February 2015. The learned CIT (A) held that; i. With respect to the transfer pricing adjustment