BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

71 results for “depreciation”+ Section 144C(13)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai630Delhi555Bangalore323Kolkata78Chennai71Hyderabad53Ahmedabad45Pune32Chandigarh13Jaipur9Indore8Cochin8Dehradun7Karnataka5Surat5Visakhapatnam3Panaji2Nagpur1Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Kerala1Telangana1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)68Addition to Income43Transfer Pricing35Section 92C28Section 14727Disallowance27Depreciation25Section 144C(5)21Section 4020Section 14A

GANESAN KANNAN,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITI, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, THOOTHUKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Section 144C(8) and consequently erred in enhancing / re- computing the computation of Short Term Capital Gains for the 1st and the 2nd property, computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.90,86,561/- reported by the appellant as Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.1,34,63,935/- in the proceedings initiated and completed without assigning proper reasons and justification

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

17
Comparables/TP16
Deduction12

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

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

ITA 1085/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 42(2)Section 42(2)(b)

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

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

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

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

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

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 55/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 92C

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 of INR 2,09,40,303/- holding that the same stands set off fully against the income of the relevant previous year as the Assessing Officer was of the view that

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

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

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

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

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

DOOWON AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KNACHEEPURAM vs. ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE RANGE 1, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3061/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3061/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Doowon Automotive Systems The Assistant Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. B-19 & 20, Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Sipcot Industrial Park, Oragadam, Corporate Range – 1, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai. Kancheepuram District 602 105. [Pan:Aaccd4172F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri B. Jayaragahvan, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 92Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Dated 13.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Besides Challenging Transfer Pricing Issues Of Custom Duty, Working Capital Adjustment, Foreign Exchange Loss, Provision For Doubtful Debts, Confirming Hanon Climate Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Is A Comparable Company, The Assessee Has Also Challenged Corporate Tax Issue Of Brought Forward Business Losses From The Previous Years.

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

13) r.w.s. 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], dated 13.10.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. Besides challenging Transfer Pricing issues of custom duty, working capital adjustment, foreign exchange loss, provision for doubtful debts, confirming Hanon Climate Systems India Pvt. Ltd. is a comparable company, the assessee has also challenged corporate tax issue of brought

PRECISION HYDRAULICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1841/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:1841/Chny/2017 िनधा&रणवष&/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Mr. T. Banushekar, C.A For theFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] in pursuance of the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 24.04.2017. I.T.A. No.1841/CHNY/2017 Assessment Year :2013 - 2014 2. The brief fact of the case are that the Appellant, a private limited company, was engaged in the business of manufacturing hydraulic cylinders

FLEXTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ACIT (OSD), CHENNAI

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

ITA 322/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.322/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Flextronics Technologies (India) Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited [Appeal By Flexpower India Income Tax (Osd), Private Limited, That Has Merged With Corporate Range 2, Room No. 403, Flextronics Technologies (India) Private Wanaparthy Block, No. 121, Limited, Plot No. 3, Phase Ii, Sipcot Mahatma Gandhi Road, Industrial Park, Sandavellure C Village, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu 602 106. [Pan:Aaacf5248E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” In Short] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Pressed Ground Nos. 1

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 30.11.2016 by making adjustment in accordance with the directions given by the ld. DRP. 7. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the TPO determined the ALP at NIL, which is not correct

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2345/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Respondent: 28.02.2017
Section 143(3)

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

ITA 2344/CHNY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2005-06

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

For Respondent: 28.02.2017
Section 143(3)

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

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

ITA 469/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

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 -:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

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

EAST WIND FOOTWEAR COMPANY LIMITED - INDIA BRANCH ,THIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1) & 1(2) , CHENNAI

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

ITA 1655/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1655/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. East Wind Footwear Company The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Limited – India Branch, Plot No. 3, Income Tax, D&E, Sipcot Industrial Park, Mathur, International Taxation 1(1) & 1(2), Mangal Village, Cheyyar T.K., Chennai. Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu 631 701. [Pan: Aacce5043N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Ramakrishnan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 28.04.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Are That The Assessing Officer & The Drp Have Erred In Law In Not Allowing The Deduction Under Section 10Aa Of The Act & Computation Of Tax Payable & Levy Of Interest Under Section 234D Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. Ramakrishnan, CIT
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234D

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 28.04.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. The effective grounds raised in the appeal of the assessee are that the Assessing Officer and the DRP have erred in law in not allowing the deduction under section 10AA of the Act and computation of tax payable and levy

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

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 953/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

13) of the Act pursuant to the directions DRP u/s. 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

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

13) of the Act pursuant to the directions DRP u/s. 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

SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2052/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2052/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr.Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

144C(13) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act”) is not in accordance with the law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in any case in violation of principles of equity and natural justice. Adjustment under section 92CA of the Act in respect of software development services 2. The Honourable

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

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

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

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

ITA 338/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

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