ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

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.

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 in the following grounds: Manufacturing of Earthmoving Equipment Segment 3. Erroneous Rejection of Economic Adjustments - Idle Capacity

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It was also brought to our notice that, Section 270A(6)(a) of the Act inter alia provides that, penalty will not be levied where the assessee

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It was also brought to our notice that, Section 270A(6)(a) of the Act inter alia provides that, penalty will not be levied where the assessee

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It was also brought to our notice that, Section 270A(6)(a) of the Act inter alia provides that, penalty will not be levied where the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. REGEN POWERTECH (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Section 92D read with Rule 10D. The Assessee company had also submitted details of the technology knowhow it obtained from its AE and the details of the Royalty payments made.Furthermore, ITAT are of the opinion that once TNMM has been applied to the Assessee company's transaction, it covers under its ambit the Royalty transactions in question too and hence

REGEN POWERTECH PRIVATE LMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Section 92D read with Rule 10D. The Assessee company had also submitted details of the technology knowhow it obtained from its AE and the details of the Royalty payments made.Furthermore, ITAT are of the opinion that once TNMM has been applied to the Assessee company's transaction, it covers under its ambit the Royalty transactions in question too and hence