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

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

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

COASTAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2305/Chny/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Coastal Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 5, Buhari Buildings, Moores Road, Income Tax, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006. Company Circle I(3), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacc4160A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

144C(13) and 92CA(3) of the Act dated 19.10.2012, made an addition of ₹6,05,31,118/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment for international transactions. 28. The ld. AR submits that the assessee had entered into international transactions involving the purchase of coal from its Associated Enterprise (AE). In the course of the transfer pricing assessment

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

144C(13)\nof the Act. In this order, an addition of Rs.17,61,12,836/- was made\ntowards profits allegedly attributable to a Permanent Establishment (PE)\nin India, resulting in a tax demand of Rs.20,82,31,507.\n\nProceedings under MAP\n\nWhile the Assessee challenged the said assessment order before the\nHon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

144C(13)\nof the Act. In this order, an addition of Rs.17,61,12,836/- was made\ntowards profits allegedly attributable to a Permanent Establishment (PE)\nin India, resulting in a tax demand of Rs.20,82,31,507.\nProceedings under MAP\nPage 4 of 10\nITA Nos.1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526 & 1527/CHNY/2025\nAYs

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

144C(13)\nof the Act. In this order, an addition of Rs.17,61,12,836/- was made\ntowards profits allegedly attributable to a Permanent Establishment (PE)\nin India, resulting in a tax demand of Rs.20,82,31,507.\nProceedings under MAP\nWhile the Assessee challenged the said assessment order before the\nHon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), it also

PRODAPT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1015/Mds/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 M/S. Prodapt Solutions Pvt Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Seshadri Road, V. Income Tax, Alwarpet, Corporate Circle –5(2), Chennai – 600 018. Chennai – 600 034. Pan : Aaacz0985G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vivekanandan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2017

144C(13) of the Act passed in pursuance to the directions of the DRP, Chennai in F.No.DRP/CHE/81/2014-15 dated 15.12.2014. 2. The assessee has raised the grounds on CIT(Appeals), 2.1 The Ld. Assessing Officer erred is not considering the fact that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The detailed grounds of appeal being independent and without prejudice to one another, including the position in law and facts is set out in the ensuing paragraphs. 2. Ground 2 Addition of Guarantee Fees

H S I AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:276/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:3011/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

144C(13) of the Act. Both the orders are pursuant from the orders of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru passed u/s.144C(5) of the Act (in brevity “The DRP”). Both the orders are the same and are having the same kind of issues and hence we are clubbing all the issues together and disposing off the issues accordingly

HSI AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:276/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:3011/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

144C(13) of the Act. Both the orders are pursuant from the orders of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru passed u/s.144C(5) of the Act (in brevity “The DRP”). Both the orders are the same and are having the same kind of issues and hence we are clubbing all the issues together and disposing off the issues accordingly

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.

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai ('the Assessing Officer'/'AO') is erroneous and contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Transfer Pricing ground - upward adjustment to arm's length price. General Ground 2.1 The directions of the Dispute

M/S. SECUREKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3232/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Securekloud Technologies Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Bascon Futura Sv 5Th Floor, Corporate Circle 3(1), 10/1 Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aabcp6266D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 18 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 18 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination

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

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

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