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...

92B, we may only reiterate that this definition would have been relevant only in the event of there being any transaction in the nature of sale, purchase of lease of intangible assets but then, it is not even the case of the revenue, that there was any sale, purchase or lease of intangibles. In view of these discussions, as also

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...

92B, we may only reiterate that this definition would have been relevant only in the event of there being any transaction in the nature of sale, purchase of lease of intangible assets but then, it is not even the case of the revenue, that there was any sale, purchase or lease of intangibles. In view of these discussions, as also

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...

92B, we may only reiterate that this definition would have been relevant only in the event of there being any transaction in the nature of sale, purchase of lease of intangible assets but then, it is not even the case of the revenue, that there was any sale, purchase or lease of intangibles. In view of these discussions, as also

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...

92B, we may only reiterate that this definition would have been relevant only in the event of there being any transaction in the nature of sale, purchase of lease of intangible assets but then, it is not even the case of the revenue, that there was any sale, purchase or lease of intangibles. In view of these discussions, as also

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)

92B of the Act. Sub Section (2) as it stood prior to 01.04.2015 is reproduced hereunder:- ‘’(2) A transaction entered into by an enterprise with a person other than an associated enterprise shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be a transaction entered into between two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement

ACITLTU-2, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

92B does not enlarge the scope of the term international transaction to include the Corporate Guarantee in the nature provided by the assessee therein. The Tribunal held that in case of default, Guarantor has to fulfill the liability and therefore, there is always an inherent risk in providing guarantees and that may be a reason that Finance provider insist

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

92B does not enlarge the scope of the term international transaction to include the Corporate Guarantee in the nature provided by the assessee therein. The Tribunal held that in case of default, Guarantor has to fulfill the liability and therefore, there is always an inherent risk in providing guarantees and that may be a reason that Finance provider insist

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68,14,24,514: 6.1. The CIT(A) is not justified in merely following the CIT(A) NFAC's preceding year's order i.e. for AY 2018-19 and erred in directing AO to adopt an incorrect margin of 6.09% instead of the margin of 11.51% as claimed by the appellant for the eligible unit. 6.2. The CIT(A)-NFAC

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) LTU - II, CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1402/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.,\nNo.1, Sardar Patel Road,\nGuindy, Chennai-600 032.\n[PAN: AAAСА 4651 L]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8(1),\nLTU-II,\nChennai.\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1663/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8,\nChennai.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nM/s. Ashok Leyl

68,14,24,514:\n6. 1. The CIT(A) is not justified in merely following the CIT(A) NFAC's\npreceding year's order i.e. for AY 2018-19 and erred in directing AO to\nadopt an incorrect margin of 6.09% instead of the margin of 11.51% as\nclaimed by the appellant for the eligible unit

MITSUBA SICAL INDIA PVT. LIMITED,GUMMIDIPOONDI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.400/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. Mitsuba Sical India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Previously Mitsuba Sical (India Corporate Circle 4(1) Ltd) Chennai. No.8,Sipcot Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi 601 201. [Pan Aaccm 4446M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 92B(1) of the Act. Ld. DRP took a presumption that impact on the basis of calculation of Arms Length Pricing by applying most appropriate, would be proportionately reduced by deducting the cost of purchase from Non Associated Enterprises. Ld. DRP, also took :- 9 -: a presumption that reduction in margins of the assessee on account of inflated purchases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. ORIENT GREEN POWER COMPANY LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

68,141/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO made reference to TPO for determining arm’s length price of specified domestic transaction. The TPO, Chennai passed an order u/s.92CA(3) on 30.10.2017 disallowing Rs.4,04,49,600/-. Subsequently, the AO has completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 92CA r.w.s 144C(1) on 29.01.2018 by making following additions

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

92B by way of Expl. (c) with retrospective effect? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) was correct and justified in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A being expenditure incurred to earn exempt income while computing the profits u/s 115JB? 5. Whether ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book

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

92B by way of Expl. (c) with retrospective effect? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) was correct and justified in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A being expenditure incurred to earn exempt income while computing the profits u/s 115JB? 5. Whether ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book

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

92B by way of Expl. (c) with retrospective effect? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) was correct and justified in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A being expenditure incurred to earn exempt income while computing the profits u/s 115JB? 5. Whether ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book

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

92B by way of Expl. (c) with retrospective effect? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) was correct and justified in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A being expenditure incurred to earn exempt income while computing the profits u/s 115JB? 5. Whether ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book