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

92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').\n3 Rejection of Transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant\n3.1 The TPO erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis performed by the Appellant\nand incorrectly undertook a fresh benchmarking analysis.\n3.2. The TPO has erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis prepared by the\nAppellant without appreciating the fact that

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

92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').\n3 Rejection of Transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant\n3.1 The TPO erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis performed by the Appellant\nand incorrectly undertook a fresh benchmarking analysis.\n3.2. The TPO has erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis prepared by the\nAppellant without appreciating the fact that

LITE-ON MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3194 & 478/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S. Lite-On Mobile India Pvt.Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Nokia Telecom Special Economic Zone, Income Tax, Plot No.1A, Sipcot Industrial Park, Corporate Circle-4(1) Phase-Iii Chennai-Bangalore Highway, Chennai-600 034. Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram Dist. Pin- 602 105. Pan: Aadcp 9246K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

3) of the Act; • without appreciating that the management services transaction undertaken by the Appellant was closely interlinked with its primary operations, thus necessitating aggregation approach for the purposes of TP in accordance with section 92C of the Act read with Rule10B of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) and the relevant OECD guidelines; • without adopting

LITE-ON MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3194 & 478/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S. Lite-On Mobile India Pvt.Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Nokia Telecom Special Economic Zone, Income Tax, Plot No.1A, Sipcot Industrial Park, Corporate Circle-4(1) Phase-Iii Chennai-Bangalore Highway, Chennai-600 034. Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram Dist. Pin- 602 105. Pan: Aadcp 9246K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

3) of the Act; • without appreciating that the management services transaction undertaken by the Appellant was closely interlinked with its primary operations, thus necessitating aggregation approach for the purposes of TP in accordance with section 92C of the Act read with Rule10B of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) and the relevant OECD guidelines; • without adopting

HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

TDS and prayed for direction . The Ld AO is directed to allow the credit as per law. 8. Ground No.4 and 6 are against the rejection of CUP as Most Appropriate Method (MAM ) for benchmarking the sale transaction and adopting TNMM as MAM for sale transaction and the assessee has made sale of Rs. 555 Crores

COASTAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2305/Chny/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Coastal Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 5, Buhari Buildings, Moores Road, Income Tax, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006. Company Circle I(3), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacc4160A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

92C(2) of the Act. 29. The DRP in its direction to Assessing Officer dated 31.08.2012, allowed the benefit of the credit notes except in one case where the credit note was erroneously dated before the date of invoice. In this regard, the ld. AR submits that the DRP/Assessing Officer has erred both in law and on facts by disregarding

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO on the directions issued by the Ld. DRP erred in analyzing the transaction separately by inappropriate application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method without furnishing details of price charged in any comparable uncontrolled transaction

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO on the directions issued by the Ld. DRP erred in analyzing the transaction separately by inappropriate application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method without furnishing details of price charged in any comparable uncontrolled transaction

EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2084/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Eversendai Construction- V. The Dy. Commissioner- Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Plot No.1 & 2, The Lords, Corporate Circle-2(1), Block-1, 5Th Floor, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai.

sections (1) and (2) of 92C. Hence an adjustment amounting to Rs.85,15,716 is to be made to the sales of the international transactions. 5. Pursuant to the TPO order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated 28.10.2016, the AO has passed draft assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Act, on 30.06.2017 and proposed TP adjustment as suggested

CATERPILLAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO, learned TPO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not considering multiple Year financial data of the comparable companies while determining the arm's length price' as prescribed under Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). 4. The learned AO, learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(3), CHENNAI., CHENNAI vs. M/S. CATERPILLAR INDIA PVT. LTD , CHENNAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 42/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Caterpillar India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Income Tax, Taramani Road, Vs. Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai – 600 113. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 717/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Caterpillar India Private Tax, Limited, 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle- 3(3), V. Chennai – 600 034. Taramani Road, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. By Virtual ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Dated 07.03.2023. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For :-2-: It(Tp) A. No:42 /Chny/2023 & The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

92C(3) of the Act were satisfied and erroneously disregarded the TP study maintained by the Appellant as per Section 92D of the Act read with rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. TPO / Ld. AO erred

HSI AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:276/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:3011/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

Section 92C(2) of the Act, the standard deduction of +/- 5% should be allowed. 3. In Corporate Tax, the following issues were added, such as payment of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance, Guarantee Fee payment and applicability of TDS

H S I AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:276/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:3011/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

Section 92C(2) of the Act, the standard deduction of +/- 5% should be allowed. 3. In Corporate Tax, the following issues were added, such as payment of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance, Guarantee Fee payment and applicability of TDS

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3), CHENNAI vs. TRIMEX INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

3 Direct Expenses 7,35,94,440 1,77,89,231 4 Gross Profit 1-(2+3) 7,26,53,635 4,83,08,166 5 Mark up on cost 29.21% 41.93% The TPO required the assessee to show-cause as to why the mark- up @ 41.93% why should not be taken up as markup on cost

TRIMEX INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

3 Direct Expenses 7,35,94,440 1,77,89,231 4 Gross Profit 1-(2+3) 7,26,53,635 4,83,08,166 5 Mark up on cost 29.21% 41.93% The TPO required the assessee to show-cause as to why the mark- up @ 41.93% why should not be taken up as markup on cost

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3), CHENNAI vs. TRIMEX INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

3 Direct Expenses 7,35,94,440 1,77,89,231 4 Gross Profit 1-(2+3) 7,26,53,635 4,83,08,166 5 Mark up on cost 29.21% 41.93% The TPO required the assessee to show-cause as to why the mark- up @ 41.93% why should not be taken up as markup on cost

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

3% by the assessee is at arm’s length. The Technical Collaboration Agreement stands approved by the Government of India. The royalty payment has been accepted by the department as having been made by the assessee wholly and exclusively for its business purposes. For Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06, such payment of royalty has been allowed

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

3% by the assessee is at arm’s length. The Technical Collaboration Agreement stands approved by the Government of India. The royalty payment has been accepted by the department as having been made by the assessee wholly and exclusively for its business purposes. For Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06, such payment of royalty has been allowed