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

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

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The detailed grounds of appeal being independent and without prejudice to one another, including the position in law and facts is set out in the ensuing paragraphs. 2. Ground 2 Addition of Guarantee Fees

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 -:

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 -: 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and selling of generic injectable drugs to its group

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

depreciation allowance under section 10(2)(vi) of the Act." Therefore, the Supreme Court clearly said that the Tribunal could permit additional grounds to be raised for the first time before it so long as these additional grounds were the subject-matter of the proceedings; because, quite clearly, the court has interpreted the subject- matter of the appeal widely

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

depreciation is admissible under section 32" had been omitted; and] (c) to the depletion of mineral oil in the mining area in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which commercial production is begun and for such succeeding year or years as may be specified in the agreement; and such allowances shall be computed and made

YUGENDIRAN VISHNUPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

144C(5) dated 26.02.2024. 2. The registry has noted delay of 202 days in filing the appeals. Considering the reasons as stated in the affidavit by the Assessee i.e; ‘instead of preferring appeals before the Tribunal had filed appeals before the CIT(A)’, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication

YUGENDIRAN VISHNUPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

144C(5) dated 26.02.2024. 2. The registry has noted delay of 202 days in filing the appeals. Considering the reasons as stated in the affidavit by the Assessee i.e; ‘instead of preferring appeals before the Tribunal had filed appeals before the CIT(A)’, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144C(5) of the Act dated 23.12.2015. 2. The first common issue in this appeal of Revenue for A.Y 2010- 11 and the appeal of assessee for A.Y 2011-12 is as regards to the issue of adjustment made to Arms Length Price(ALP) on account of corporate guarantee commission whether to be made or not. For this, the Revenue

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144C(5) of the Act dated 23.12.2015. 2. The first common issue in this appeal of Revenue for A.Y 2010- 11 and the appeal of assessee for A.Y 2011-12 is as regards to the issue of adjustment made to Arms Length Price(ALP) on account of corporate guarantee commission whether to be made or not. For this, the Revenue

R STAHL PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(2), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:55/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

Section 92CA(4) and 144C(1) of the Act prosing transfer pricing addition of INR 2,63,22,674/-. In addition, the Assessing Officer, rejected the claim of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation

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...

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. There is also a cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 but that is, for the reasons we will set out now, not maintainable. The scheme

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...

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. There is also a cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 but that is, for the reasons we will set out now, not maintainable. The scheme

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...

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. There is also a cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 but that is, for the reasons we will set out now, not maintainable. The scheme

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...

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. There is also a cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 but that is, for the reasons we will set out now, not maintainable. The scheme

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...

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. There is also a cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 but that is, for the reasons we will set out now, not maintainable. The scheme

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 3(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.745/Chny/2025

144C on 30.11.2021, computing the book profit under Section 115JB at Rs. 5,40,53,120, disallowing the assessee's claim of set-off of brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.23,79,08,002/-. The AO held the view that these losses have already been adjusted in earlier years (AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16) and therefore were