Ych Logistics Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 944/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 944/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Ych Logistics (India) Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Plot No. Dv1, Sipcot Hi-Tech Vs. Income Tax, Sez, Phase Ii, Sirumangadu Village, Corporate Circle 3(2), Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Chennai. District, Tamil Nadu 602 105. [Pan:Aaacy2873L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 14.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Logistics Services & Filed Its Return Of Income On 20.07.2011 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Admitting Loss Of 2
For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C
…lar to that of in the low end business/ services companies. Hence it is imperative that AE payments viz., Royalty, trademark fees, management fees, purchase/sale etc., has to be benchmarked separately. In the case of Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (115 TTJ 577 (2208) it was held that Arm's Length Price should be determined on a transaction by transaction basis. Only in cases when the separate transactions are so closely linked or continuous that they cannot be evaluated adequately on a separate basis, such transaction may be evaluated together. In the case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT Range XI(I), t…
