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

section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The CIT(A) /TPO ought to have appreciated that the amount of INR 2.2 128,58,880/- paid by the Appellant to its AE commensurate with the various services provided by latter. The CIT(A) / TPO erred in law and facts by rejecting the Transactional 2.3 Net Margin Method

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

section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The CIT(A) /TPO ought to have appreciated that the amount of INR 2.2 128,58,880/- paid by the Appellant to its AE commensurate with the various services provided by latter. The CIT(A) / TPO erred in law and facts by rejecting the Transactional 2.3 Net Margin Method

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 -:

depreciation as per law in force. In view of the above, ground No.2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Ground No 3.1 has not been pressed. 7. Ground No 3.2 is against non consideration of TDS credit while computing the demand. The Ld AR has submitted that the Ld AO has not given credit of TDS and prayed for direction

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)

Depreciation 2,67,72,822 Add: Interest 3,73,57,238 Less: Cost of design 11,63,79,436 engineering and related services Less: TP adj in 62,26,00,000 RNAIPL Adjusted cost 5,25,21,14,115 Net Loss -1,70,38,02,781 Net loss on Revenue -48.02% :- 9 -: Computation of TP adjustment Particulars Reference Amount

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...

92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction'' means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

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...

92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction'' means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

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...

92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction'' means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

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...

92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction'' means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

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...

92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction'' means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

CATERPILLAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

The appeal stands 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.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO, learned TPO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not considering multiple Year financial data of the comparable companies while determining the arm's length price' as prescribed under Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). 4. The learned AO, learned

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3 Rejection of Transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant 3.1 The TPO erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis performed by the Appellant and incorrectly undertook a fresh benchmarking analysis. 3.2. The TPO has erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis prepared by the Appellant without appreciating the fact that

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3 Rejection of Transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant 3.1 The TPO erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis performed by the Appellant and incorrectly undertook a fresh benchmarking analysis. 3.2. The TPO has erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis prepared by the Appellant without appreciating the fact that

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)") Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act') For The

92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3 Rejection of Transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant 3.1 The TPO erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis performed by the Appellant and incorrectly undertook a fresh benchmarking analysis. 3.2. The TPO has erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis prepared by the Appellant without appreciating the fact that

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.

92C(3) of the Act were satisfied and erroneously disregarded the TP study maintained by the Appellant as per Section 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

M/S T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAIVS.ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 92C(2) of the Act postulates that if the difference between the actual price and the ALP is less than 3% no addition is required to be made. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it operates its business in a captive customer scenario. Thus, it was argued that the assessee is doing captive or to say customized

EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2084/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Eversendai Construction- V. The Dy. Commissioner- Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Plot No.1 & 2, The Lords, Corporate Circle-2(1), Block-1, 5Th Floor, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai.

sections (1) and (2) of 92C. Hence an adjustment amounting to Rs.85,15,716 is to be made to the sales of the international transactions. 5. Pursuant to the TPO order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated 28.10.2016, the AO has passed draft assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Act, on 30.06.2017 and proposed TP adjustment as suggested

HARLAND CLARKE HOLDING SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(2), CHENN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

3 percent under the proviso to Section 92C of the Act. Issue 2—Grounds relating to Corporate Tax Matters Ground of objection 12 — 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

Section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2.2 Erred in law and on facts in rejecting the usage of multiple year data for comparability analysis. 2.3 Erred in law and on facts by rejecting comparable companies selected by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation. Further, erred in rejecting comparable companies whose products are broadly comparable