M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

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)

92D and 92E "international transaction" means a transaction between two or 92E "international transaction" means a transaction between two or 92E "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease

PHILIPS FOODS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,TUTICORIN vs. PCIT-1, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

92D(3) read with section 129 were issued to\nthe Appellant with a questionnaire enclosed alongside seeking details\nwith respect to the international transactions of the Appellant. The\nAppellant made the relevant submissions in response to each of the\nnotices. After examining the documents and submissions furnished by\nthe Appellant, the TPO passed an order dated January 27, 2021 under

YCH LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM, TAMILNADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -3(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ych Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech Sez Phase Ii, V. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacy-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'). Further erred in not satisfying the conditions mentioned u/s.92C(3) of the Act before making an adjustment to the income of the Appellant. 2.2. The Hon'ble CIT (A) and the Learned TPO erred in law and on facts in adopting the Comparable Uncontrolled

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.

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 in the following grounds: Manufacturing of Earthmoving Equipment Segment 3. Erroneous Rejection of Economic Adjustments - Idle Capacity

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 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2008 - 9 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2009 = 9/12 x 3857 millions + 9/12 x 370 millions = USD 3740 millions. 8.38% x USD 3740 millions = USD 313.41 millions = INR 1493,12,19,897. If the Sales of HMIL and HMC are considered to be the respective drivers of their

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 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2008 - 9 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2009 = 9/12 x 3857 millions + 9/12 x 370 millions = USD 3740 millions. 8.38% x USD 3740 millions = USD 313.41 millions = INR 1493,12,19,897. If the Sales of HMIL and HMC are considered to be the respective drivers of their

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 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2008 - 9 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2009 = 9/12 x 3857 millions + 9/12 x 370 millions = USD 3740 millions. 8.38% x USD 3740 millions = USD 313.41 millions = INR 1493,12,19,897. If the Sales of HMIL and HMC are considered to be the respective drivers of their

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 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2008 - 9 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2009 = 9/12 x 3857 millions + 9/12 x 370 millions = USD 3740 millions. 8.38% x USD 3740 millions = USD 313.41 millions = INR 1493,12,19,897. If the Sales of HMIL and HMC are considered to be the respective drivers of their

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 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2008 - 9 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2009 = 9/12 x 3857 millions + 9/12 x 370 millions = USD 3740 millions. 8.38% x USD 3740 millions = USD 313.41 millions = INR 1493,12,19,897. If the Sales of HMIL and HMC are considered to be the respective drivers of their

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

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

3)The amount of under-reported income shall be,— (i)in a case where income has been assessed for the first time,— (a)if return has been furnished, the difference between the amount of income assessed and the amount of income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b)in a case where no return

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. REGEN POWERTECH (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

3) r.w.s. 92 CA dated 30.03.2015 with ITA No.766 & 786/Mds/2016 :- 4 -: additions. Subsequently, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter ‘’DRP’’) and the DRP vide proceedings dated 23.12.2005 has upheld the adjustment by the TPO and others additions of the ld. Assessing Officer except disallowance u/s.14A of the Act and the ld. Assessing Officer completed assessment based

REGEN POWERTECH PRIVATE LMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

3) r.w.s. 92 CA dated 30.03.2015 with ITA No.766 & 786/Mds/2016 :- 4 -: additions. Subsequently, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter ‘’DRP’’) and the DRP vide proceedings dated 23.12.2005 has upheld the adjustment by the TPO and others additions of the ld. Assessing Officer except disallowance u/s.14A of the Act and the ld. Assessing Officer completed assessment based

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It was also brought to our notice that, Section 270A(6)(a) of the Act inter alia provides that, penalty will not be levied where the assessee