SIVAKARTHICK RAMAN,MADURAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:281/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sivakarthick Raman, The Assistant Commissioner Of 5/200, 2Nd Street, Alagupillai Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, T.Pudukudi, International Taxation Circle, Achampathu, Madurai. Madurai – 625 019. [Pan: Ajnpr-3214-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

144C(13) of the Act against the assessee for AY 2022-23 disallowing the exemption of Rs.1,53,65,359/- claimed under Article 15(1) of India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) r.w.s. 90 of the Act in respect of the salary income received in India for services rendered in China to BMW Brilliance Automotive Limited, China (BMW China

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144C of the Act because the AO has become functus officio once demand is determined and notice u/s.156 of the Act along with initiation of penalty order is passed, the AO ceased with the jurisdiction. The subsequent action of the AO in passing final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s 144(5) of the Act dated

M/S. CASTLEWICK FZE,DUBAI vs. ACIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\ncalled 'the Act'). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.\n2.\nBrief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a\ncompany incorporated in UAE. During the assessment year 2018-19,\nthe assessee was in receipt of income of Rs.90 lakhs from an Indian\ncustomer named M/s. Gannon Dunkerley

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') for the\n assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18 dated 29.03.2024,\n29.03.2024 and 29.03.2024 respectively. The CO has been raised by the\nassessee for the A.Y.2015-16 only. Since the facts are common/identical and\nthe issue of assessee's claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on\namalgamation

KELLER GROUND ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 144C of the Act is invalid in law and should be struck down as much. 2. The draft assessment order, which is in essence the final assessment order, given that the notice of demand had also been issued and penalty has also been initiated, is a patent violation of the provisions of the Act and therefore, the assessment deserved

FORD INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. DY CIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

144C. (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward3a a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation

FORD INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. DY CIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

144C. (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward3a a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

144C(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Act dated 29.05.2015, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of ₹. 7,35,900/- as TP adjustment. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the above TP adjustment. The assessee contended that Tribunal is consistently holding that TP adjustment in respect of guarantee given to AE shall be at 0.5% and prayed to restrict the disallowance

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

144C(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Act dated 29.05.2015, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of ₹. 7,35,900/- as TP adjustment. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the above TP adjustment. The assessee contended that Tribunal is consistently holding that TP adjustment in respect of guarantee given to AE shall be at 0.5% and prayed to restrict the disallowance

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act') for the\n assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18 dated 29.03.2024,\n29.03.2024 and 29.03.2024 respectively. The CO has been raised by the\nassessee for the A.Y.2015-16 only. Since the facts are common/identical and\nthe issue of assessee's claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on\namalgamation

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act') for the\n assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18 dated 29.03.2024,\n29.03.2024 and 29.03.2024 respectively. The CO has been raised by the\nassessee for the A.Y.2015-16 only. Since the facts are common/identical and\nthe issue of assessee's claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on\namalgamation

DCIT,CC-2(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S, JAN DE NUL DREDGING (I)(P)LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.870/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Jan De Nul Dredging (I)(P) Ltd., “Capital”, 10Th Floor, No. 554/555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Mount Road, Chennai 600 018. Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacj6482G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. & Ms. C. Sowndarya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 26.08.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Dredging Services & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 30.11.2011 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.3,86,20,850/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Processed Under Section 143(1)

2) and 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has 6 I.T.A. No. 870/Chny/20 completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 31.03.2015. However, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons for reopening of assessment: “On scrutiny of records

ABAN SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1329/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 2. Stay Application No.9/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1329/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) M/S. Aban Singapore Pte. Limited Dcit बनाम/ 113, Pantheon Road, Egmore S.O International Taxation-1(1), Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqca-2845-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024

2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and filed written submissions. It has been submitted that no such disallowance could have been made since the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(i) are not applicable to the case of the assessee for the reason that the income was offered on presumptive basis u/s 44BB. The Ld. CIT-DR controverted the arguments

DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD,HARYANA vs. JCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1885/Chny/2017 & 665/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2013-14 Doosan Power Systems India The Jcit / Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle -1(1), 16Th Floor, Dlf Square, Chennai. Jacaranda Marg, Near Nh-8, Dlf Phase-Ii, Gurgaon – 122 002. Pan: Aabcb 5946J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

144C of the Act following the directions of TPO & DRP directing the AO to make transfer pricing adjustment by taking the comparable of Acropetal Technologies Limited (‘Acropetal’). For this, assessee has raised the following Ground No.3:- 3. On facts and in law, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in violating the provisions of Rule

DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1885/Chny/2017 & 665/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2013-14 Doosan Power Systems India The Jcit / Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle -1(1), 16Th Floor, Dlf Square, Chennai. Jacaranda Marg, Near Nh-8, Dlf Phase-Ii, Gurgaon – 122 002. Pan: Aabcb 5946J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

144C of the Act following the directions of TPO & DRP directing the AO to make transfer pricing adjustment by taking the comparable of Acropetal Technologies Limited (‘Acropetal’). For this, assessee has raised the following Ground No.3:- 3. On facts and in law, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in violating the provisions of Rule

PANASONIC CORPORATION,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

2. The first issue arises for consideration is failure of the Assessing Officer to give TDS in respect of royalty income of ₹1,15,84,022/-. 3. Shri R.K. Kapoor, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that M/s Panasonic Carbon India deducted tax at source while making payment towards royalty to the extent of ₹1,15,84,022/-. However

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is not in accordance with the law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principle of equity and natural justice. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings 2. The AO erred in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company and hence

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is not in accordance with the law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principle of equity and natural justice. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings 2. The AO erred in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company and hence

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is not in accordance with the law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principle of equity and natural justice. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings 2. The AO erred in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company and hence