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

SL LUMAX LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy*नधा,रण वष, /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Sl Lumax Ltd., V. The Principal Commissioner G-14, 15 & 25, Sipcot Industrial Of Income Tax, Room No.602, Park, Irrungattukottai, Vi Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Sriperumbudur-602 117. New Block, Mahatama Gandhi Kancheepuram District. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. [Pan: Aaacl 1857 B] (अपीलाथ//Appellant) (01यथ//Respondent) : Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, अपीलाथ/ क2 ओर से/ Appellant By Adv. : Mr. A.Sundararajan, Cit 01यथ/ क2 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.11.2019 सुनवाई क2 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2020 घोषणा क2 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

144C(3) of the 1961 Act. The learned counsel for assessee also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Jain Construction Company reported in (2012) 83 CCH 0234(Raj.HC). The Ld.CIT-DR, on the other hand, supported the revisionary order passed by learned PCIT and submitted that Explanation-2 to Sec.263

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

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is not in accordance with the law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principle of equity and natural justice. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings 2. The AO erred in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company and hence

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

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is not in accordance with the law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principle of equity and natural justice. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings 2. The AO erred in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company and hence

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

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is not in accordance with the law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principle of equity and natural justice. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings 2. The AO erred in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company and hence

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is not in accordance with the law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principle of equity and natural justice. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings 2. The AO erred in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company and hence

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...

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. There is also a cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 but that is, for the reasons we will set out now, not maintainable. The scheme

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...

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. There is also a cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 but that is, for the reasons we will set out now, not maintainable. The scheme

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...

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. There is also a cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 but that is, for the reasons we will set out now, not maintainable. The scheme

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...

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. There is also a cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 but that is, for the reasons we will set out now, not maintainable. The scheme

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...

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. There is also a cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 but that is, for the reasons we will set out now, not maintainable. The scheme

M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTLTAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act). This order has been passed consequent upon a remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act). This order has been passed consequent upon a remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act). This order has been passed consequent upon a remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act). This order has been passed consequent upon a remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act). This order has been passed consequent upon a remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question

M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTLTAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act). This order has been passed consequent upon a remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question

SHRI RAMESH ALLADA,USA vs. ITO,INTNL. TAXN.1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

144C(5) of the Act, both for the Assessment Years 2019-20. 2. The facts and circumstances of both the appeals of assessees, being co-owner of property sold, issues raised and facts of the appeals are identical as the issue is arising out of the same transaction and hence, we deal with the issues and we will take