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

144C of the Act because the AO has become functus officio once demand is determined and notice u/s.156 of the Act along with initiation of penalty order is passed, the AO ceased with the jurisdiction. The subsequent action of the AO in passing final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s 144(5) of the Act dated

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 I.T.A. No. 55/Chny/2018 Assessment Year : 2013 - 2014 144C(5) of the Act vide order dated 18.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The R Stahl Group is engaged in the business of manufacturing explosion proof and explosion protected components, and systems for automation; control and distribution; operations and monitoring; and lighting. The Appellant, a wholly owned subsidiary

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

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

WATANMAL (INDIA) PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T(Tp).A. No. 4/Chny/2018 & I.T.A. No. 2407/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 & 2008-09 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Watanmal (India) Pvt. Ltd., Old No. 12, New No. 14, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Sripuram Second Street, Royapettah, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacw6624B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2006- 07 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, Bengaluru Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 254 R.W.S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 27.12.2017. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S.

144C(5) dated 12.07.2017. Since both the appeals are filed by the same assessee, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity. I.T(TP).A. No. 4/Chny/2018 [Assessment Year 2006-07]: 2. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee company is engaged in the business of providing logistics and business support services

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

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.

section 144C(5) dated 18.09.2017, the ld. DRP confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment as proposed in the draft assessment order. Accordingly, the TP adjustment as confirmed by the ld. DRP was added back to the income returned by the assessee. 3 I.T.A. No.3061/Chny/17 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both TP issues

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)

5. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 04.11.2011 admitting a loss of ₹.47,17,77,686/- and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act dated 16.08.2012. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated

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)

5. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 04.11.2011 admitting a loss of ₹.47,17,77,686/- and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act dated 16.08.2012. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated

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

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

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

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

M/S. STANADYNE INDIA PVT. LTD.,TIRUVALLUR vs. ACIT, CC-IV(4), CHENNA

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

144C(3) of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 28.01.2011.\n2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:\n1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)\n[“CIT(A)"] is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.\n2. Set off of unabsorbed depreciation before allowing deduction\nunder Section

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

144C(5) dated 13-09-2017. The assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) which were subjected to determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) before Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-2, Chennai (TPO) vide order dated 31-10- 2016. Incorporating the proposed adjustment, draft assessment order was passed by Ld. AO on 30-12-2016 which

YOUNG BUHMWOO INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. AIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

5,463,239 Administrative Expenses 21,659,037 Excise Duty 36,609,956 Depreciation 11,467,435 Finance Charges 74,227 Operating Cost (B) 368,030,724 Profit before tax(PBT) C=(A-B) - 8,042,649 Add: Finance Charges (D) 74,227 Profit before Interest and tax (PBIT) E=(C+D) -7,968,422 Add: Depreciation

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand 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.1834/Chny/2017 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Iljin Automotive Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Corporate Circle-2(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

144C(5) dated 28-04-2017. Since the assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE), the same were referred to Ld. DCIT (TPO)-2(1), Chennai (TPO) for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP). The Ld. TPO passed an order u/s 92CA (3) on 25-10-2016 proposing certain Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment. Incorporating

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

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