GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

house for itself.” According to the ld. DR, the transactions can be aggregated only if they are intricately intertwined and cannot be separately analyzed. This is not the case here. Moreover, aggregated approach to transfer pricing analysis is the exception rather than the norm. This issue has been dealt with extensively by the DRP of its order dated

AMBATTUR CLOTHING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House: Li & Fung India Pvt Ltd)\nwherein it is apparent that pricing of the product has been directly negotiated and\nfixed by Assessee with its third party customer without the involvement of its AE.\nThus, the contention of the Assessee that the international transaction is undertaken\non the basis of back to back invoicing is explicitly clear and factually found

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(2),, CHENNAI vs. KONE ELEVATORS INDIA LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee as well

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T(Tp)A No.:85/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2014 – 2015 M/S. Kone Elevator India Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Prestige Centre Court, 9Th Floor, Corporate Ward – 4(2), 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, The Forum Vijaya Mall, Plot No.183, Nsk Salai, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 026. Chennai – 600 034. Pan : Aaack 2567P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house by Global Software Centre of the assessee which was well equipped in terms of personnel and resources. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in assuming that the royalty is for use of brand name and not for technical know-how whereas Royalty payment was :: 3 :: I.T.(TP)A. No.85/Chny2019 AND I.TA No.3405/Chny/ 2019 made by the assessee only

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ABAN OFFSHORE LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

method without complying with the procedure laid down for computation of arms length price as given in the provisions of section 92C of the Act. i. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the TPO has erred in comparing the domestic bank rate with the international transaction which is not in accordance with Rule10B(1) of the Income Tax Rules

M/S ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

method without complying with the procedure laid down for computation of arms length price as given in the provisions of section 92C of the Act. i. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the TPO has erred in comparing the domestic bank rate with the international transaction which is not in accordance with Rule10B(1) of the Income Tax Rules

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

method without complying with the procedure laid down for computation of arms length price as given in the provisions of section 92C of the Act. i. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the TPO has erred in comparing the domestic bank rate with the international transaction which is not in accordance with Rule10B(1) of the Income Tax Rules

M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCITCORPORATE CIRCLE1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

method without complying with the procedure laid down for computation of arms length price as given in the provisions of section 92C of the Act. i. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the TPO has erred in comparing the domestic bank rate with the international transaction which is not in accordance with Rule10B(1) of the Income Tax Rules

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

method and FC-GPR form filed by the\nCompany was accepted by RBI and taken on record.\nRelying on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal in DCIT vs Brand Marketing P Ltd 2020 113\ntaxmann.com 15, the appellant argued that once the\nshares were issued higher than the DCF value stipulated by\nRBI, no addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

properties received by an assessee for inadequate consideration, but it did not apply to companies and applies only to individuals and HUF. It was by Finance Act 2017 that with effect from Assessment Year 2018-19 that this provision was substituted by Section 56(2)(x) that extended these deeming provisions to companies also. Thus, there is no case

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

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

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

method and considered three years weighted average to arrive at the average margin, the AO rejected the TP study of the assessee and conducted separate study, made FAR analysis and selected following additional filters for selection of suitable comparables functionally similar to that of the tested party: • Companies whose data is not available for the FY 2006-07 were excluded

DIAB CORE MATERIALS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

House, Corporate Circle-1(1), No.15, A.R.K. Colony, Eldams Road, Chennai. Vs. Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACCD-6441-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Ashik Shah (CA) – Ld. AR ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) –Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ARMSTRONG INERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., CHENGALPUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

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

property of Armstrong and/or its licensors without limiting the generality of the foregoing, “ARMSTRONG,” “ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, ”ARMSTRONG SERVICE” and other trademarks, trade names, graphics, logos, page headers, button icons, scripts, product names and numbers, and service names are trademarks, registered trademarks, or trade dress of Armstrong in the U.S. and/or other countries Armstrong’s trademarks and trade dress

ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENGALPUT vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

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

property of Armstrong and/or its licensors without limiting the generality of the foregoing, “ARMSTRONG,” “ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, ”ARMSTRONG SERVICE” and other trademarks, trade names, graphics, logos, page headers, button icons, scripts, product names and numbers, and service names are trademarks, registered trademarks, or trade dress of Armstrong in the U.S. and/or other countries Armstrong’s trademarks and trade dress

ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

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

property of Armstrong and/or its licensors without limiting the generality of the foregoing, “ARMSTRONG,” “ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, ”ARMSTRONG SERVICE” and other trademarks, trade names, graphics, logos, page headers, button icons, scripts, product names and numbers, and service names are trademarks, registered trademarks, or trade dress of Armstrong in the U.S. and/or other countries Armstrong’s trademarks and trade dress

WINERGY DRIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1720/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Winergy Drive Systems India The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited (Merged With Vs. Income Tax, Siemens Ltd.), Corporate Taxation, Company Circle Iii(3), 3Rd Floor, 130 Pandurang Budhkar Chennai . Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. [Pan: Aaacw5466B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghunathan Sampath, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

TP adjustment in respect of interest payment amounting to ₹.40,71,973/- made by the Assessing Officer/TPO in his order. 2.1 The facts of the case are that during the previous year ended 31.03.2006, the assessee contracted a loan in Euros [which was classified in the financials as External Commercial Borrowings] from its parent Winergy AG. The said loan

POLARIS SOFTWARE LAB LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

House, Chennai - 600 034. Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 006. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri N. Venkatraman, Sr. Advocate Shri V. Ubhaya Bharathi, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 07.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017 2 I.T.A. No.1218

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. POLARIS CONSULTING & SERVICES P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

House, Chennai - 600 034. Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 006. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri N. Venkatraman, Sr. Advocate Shri V. Ubhaya Bharathi, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 07.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017 2 I.T.A. No.1218

POLARIS CONSULTING & SERVICES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

House, Chennai - 600 034. Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 006. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri N. Venkatraman, Sr. Advocate Shri V. Ubhaya Bharathi, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 07.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017 2 I.T.A. No.1218