DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing adjustments of at INR 1,48,48,492 & INR 40,96,82,652 and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. Subsequently, the A O after considering assessee’s explanation and the material etc levied the penalty u/s

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing adjustments of at INR 1,48,48,492 & INR 40,96,82,652 and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. Subsequently, the A O after considering assessee’s explanation and the material etc levied the penalty u/s

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

u/s 143(3) rws 263 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) in the order referred to above has confirmed the addition of capital gain on sale at Rs.67.50crores. The AO imposed penalty on this quantum i.e. 67.50 crores. The software division was transferred for a consideration of Rs.350 crores. This consideration was apportioned as follows: Towards Current Assets

FUTURE GAMING AND HOTEL SERVICES P LTD,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

transferred had not been identified. The cash receipts were found recorded in the loose sheets which were not recorded in the books which lead to a conclusion that there was unaccounted income in hands of assessee as per Explanation (C) (i) (A). Accordingly, the penalty was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCIT (OSD),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2546/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax (Osd), 4/249A, Rasim Enclave, Corporate Circle –1(2), Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Near Savitha Dental College, Goparasanallur, Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. Pan: Aaccc7628P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2017

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of the Act; 3. The Brief facts of the case that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cook Group Inc, USA which provides medical equipment services for its parent company. Cook India is engaged in the activity of distribution of medical devices in the Indian market. The assessee company filed the Return

NIPPON PAINT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.779/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

Transfer Pricing study maintained by the Assessee and rejecting the Resale price method adopted by the Appellant. 2.10 Erred in law and on facts by selecting Asian Paints Limited as a comparable to the Appellant without considering the significant difference in scale of operations. 2.11 Erred in law and on facts in not allowing appropriate economic adjustment such as idle

THAMIRA GREEN FARMS P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL.CIT CORPORATE RANGE 3 , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1845/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Thamira Green Farm P The Additional Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 1824/4, Gautham Corporate Range -3, Apartments, 1St Floor, Chennai. 18Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Aacct-7926-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

271 D of the Act. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 273B of the Act were completely missed while considering the necessity and compulsion for entering into the transaction with the Director/share holder and ought to have appreciated that the penalty under consideration for any violation of the provisions of section 269SS

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 5.1 The learned AO erred in levying penalty on an adjustment which has resulted from a mere difference of opinion between the learned AO I TPO and the Appellant. 5.2 The Learned AO has failed to appreciate that there was neither any concealment of particulars of income nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. DISHNET WIRELESS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

u/s 271 G was not sustainable in law. The AO is directed to delete the penalty. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 4.1 From the above it is clear, that the assessee has established that SIVA Ltd., Bermuda and Dishnet Wireless (Mauritius) Ltd are not its AEs and hence the provisions of transfer pricing

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

271(1)(c) in relation to the addition finally confirmed under the MAP resolution for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 and penalty under the new penal provisions of Section 270A(2) in AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. It is observed that, the reasoning given for levying penalty was similar viz., the assessee didn’t offer the said

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

271(1)(c) in relation to the addition finally confirmed under the MAP resolution for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 and penalty under the new penal provisions of Section 270A(2) in AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. It is observed that, the reasoning given for levying penalty was similar viz., the assessee didn’t offer the said

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS 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

271(1)(c) in relation to the addition finally confirmed under the MAP resolution for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 and penalty under the new penal provisions of Section 270A(2) in AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. It is observed that, the reasoning given for levying penalty was similar viz., the assessee didn’t offer the said

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

Transfer Pricing Officer and the TPO has passed order u/s.92CA of the Act dated 14.01.2015vide C.R. No.Y-603/TPO 3(2)/A.Y.2011-12, in which the TPO has recommended downward adjustment of Rs.7,40,95,333/- incurred to Management Support Services received from its Associated Enterprises YCH, Singapore. Thereafter the DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai passed draft assessment order u/s.143

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date ie., 31.07.2008. On 16.03.2009, a survey was carried

DCIT, VILLUPURAM vs. D.SANTHA, KALLAKURICHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date ie., 31.07.2008. On 16.03.2009, a survey was carried

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date ie., 31.07.2008. On 16.03.2009, a survey was carried

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date ie., 31.07.2008. On 16.03.2009, a survey was carried

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

transferred to the Jewellers for purchase. There are\nno receipts available for the said cash purchases and no submission as to from which\nJeweller such huge amount of Jewellery has been purchased. In the absence of the\nabove documents evidencing purchase of jewellery, it is evident that the cash withdrawals\nhave been used for some other purpose