T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

92C and determined as Rs. 9,72,301 and Rs. 78,70,058 towards reimbursement of excess AMP and mark 9,72,301 and Rs. 78,70,058 towards reimbursement of excess AMP and mark 9,72,301 and Rs. 78,70,058 towards reimbursement of excess AMP and mark up on Excess AMP. Hence an adjustment to the income

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

Gains. 3.8 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.557/Mds/2015 of assessment 2010-2011 is dismissed. C.O.No.45/Mds/2015 in ITA No.557/Mds/2015:- The 4. assessee has filed the Cross objection and raised the following grounds:- 1 The learned AO/TPO/DRP ought to have appreciated that the customer of the assessee had decided to carry on business by itself through

SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

Gains. 3.8 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.557/Mds/2015 of assessment 2010-2011 is dismissed. C.O.No.45/Mds/2015 in ITA No.557/Mds/2015:- The 4. assessee has filed the Cross objection and raised the following grounds:- 1 The learned AO/TPO/DRP ought to have appreciated that the customer of the assessee had decided to carry on business by itself through

BANCA SELLA S.P.A. CHENNAI BRANCH (IT DIVISION),CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

Gains. 3.8 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.557/Mds/2015 of assessment 2010-2011 is dismissed. C.O.No.45/Mds/2015 in ITA No.557/Mds/2015:- The 4. assessee has filed the Cross objection and raised the following grounds:- 1 The learned AO/TPO/DRP ought to have appreciated that the customer of the assessee had decided to carry on business by itself through

RENAULT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIPERAMBUDUR vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.361/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Renault India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No.37 & 38, Fourth Floor, V. Income Tax, Asv Ramana Towers, Company Circle V(3), Venkatanarayana Road, Chennai - 600 034. T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. Pan : Aadcr 2042 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

3 I.T.A. No.361/Mds/14 capital receipt and not offered for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, any receipt in relation to purchase or sale of capital asset has to be necessarily considered as capital receipt, therefore, the gain in foreign exchange due to cancellation of forward contracts has to be treated as capital receipt and not liable for taxation

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

92C and determined as NIL. ” 10.7 The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the TPOs order on this issue. 10.8 Before us the Ld.AR submitted as under : “TPO erred in concluding that since assessee company had a qualified accounting manager and supporting staff, there is no need to avail any support from AE as regards to Finance operations. It is pertinent to note

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

92C and determined as NIL. ” 10.7 The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the TPOs order on this issue. 10.8 Before us the Ld.AR submitted as under : “TPO erred in concluding that since assessee company had a qualified accounting manager and supporting staff, there is no need to avail any support from AE as regards to Finance operations. It is pertinent to note

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

92C and determined as NIL. ” 10.7 The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the TPOs order on this issue. 10.8 Before us the Ld.AR submitted as under : “TPO erred in concluding that since assessee company had a qualified accounting manager and supporting staff, there is no need to avail any support from AE as regards to Finance operations. It is pertinent to note

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance against attributing

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance against attributing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance against attributing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance against attributing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance against attributing

RENAULT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

3 – The ld. 'TPO / AO have failed to recognise that the right to identify the international transactions and the adoption of all appropriate benchmarking approach is with the assessee and it is not permissible for the authorities to reject the assessee's claim regarding the absence 0/ international :- 10 -: transactions without first discharging the onus or without proving with evidence

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

92C at "2,57, 13,271/-. On the basis of the order of the TPO u/s 92CA(3), the Assessing Officer added the sum of "2,57,13,271/- to the total income of the assessee. While doing so, the tolerable limit of 5% variation was taken with regard to each transaction. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

92C at "2,57, 13,271/-. On the basis of the order of the TPO u/s 92CA(3), the Assessing Officer added the sum of "2,57,13,271/- to the total income of the assessee. While doing so, the tolerable limit of 5% variation was taken with regard to each transaction. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

92C at "2,57, 13,271/-. On the basis of the order of the TPO u/s 92CA(3), the Assessing Officer added the sum of "2,57,13,271/- to the total income of the assessee. While doing so, the tolerable limit of 5% variation was taken with regard to each transaction. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed