PADMINI RAJAN, L/R OF LATE (SHRI) NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

price remains unpaid at the end of the previous year. Under those facts, the Hon’ble High Court came to the conclusion that amount due to the company as an advance to the director falling 29 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 within the mischief of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this case, the concern in which assessee

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex- ITA No.672/Chny/201 /Chny/2017 (AY 2012-13) M/s.TVS Motor Co. Ltd. M/s.TVS Motor Co. Ltd. :: 16 :: factory sale at Rs.2,15,56,000/ factory

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

transferred for normal business transaction and hence cannot be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant u/s.2(22)(e). 13.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding, the addition made by the Assessing Officer in adding the long term capital gains of Rs.16,24,68,072/- disallowing the exempt u/s.10(38) as undisclosed income from

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

deemed to have come into force with retrospective effect, i.e. from 16.122009. 1. It is certified that no person will be adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to these rules. 6.6 In view of this, there is no merit in applying the provisions of FEMA as indicated by the TPO and placing reliance on the provision of FEMA is incorrect

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

deemed to have come into force with retrospective effect, i.e. from 16.122009. 1. It is certified that no person will be adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to these rules. 6.6 In view of this, there is no merit in applying the provisions of FEMA as indicated by the TPO and placing reliance on the provision of FEMA is incorrect

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

transfer pricing orders, approx. 27% of value of imports was considered for downward adjustment. Even if the TPO orders were to be accepted, such profits would amount to Rs.1120.55 crores out of total imports of Rs.4150.20 crores only, whereas the total additions proposed in the case of assessee and RK exceed this conjectured profit. Without prejudice, the entire share capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. AATHMIKA HOLDINGS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

deemed dividend in hands of the borrower companies cannot be extended beyond Section 2(22) and be said to constitute “amount set apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company”, for the purposes of Rule 11UA

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

transfer pricing orders, approx. 27% of value\nof imports was considered for downward adjustment. Even\nif the TPO orders were to be accepted, such profits would\namount to Rs.1120.55 crores out of total imports of\nRs.4150.20 crores only, whereas the total additions\nproposed in the case of assessee and RK exceed this\nconjectured profit. Without prejudice, the entire share\ncapital

ACCEL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

deeming dividend without considering the facts that the assessee company has share holding and substantial interest in the financial aspects of the company. The only disputed issue that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt based on the thorough financial analysis of the earlier years were the assessee is having regular business transactions on commercial expediency and dealt with

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ACCEL LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

deeming dividend without considering the facts that the assessee company has share holding and substantial interest in the financial aspects of the company. The only disputed issue that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt based on the thorough financial analysis of the earlier years were the assessee is having regular business transactions on commercial expediency and dealt with

ACCEL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

deeming dividend without considering the facts that the assessee company has share holding and substantial interest in the financial aspects of the company. The only disputed issue that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt based on the thorough financial analysis of the earlier years were the assessee is having regular business transactions on commercial expediency and dealt with

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.269/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Cognizant Technology- The Asst. Commissioner- Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, 5/535, Okkiam, Thoriapakkam, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 096. [Pan:Aaacd 3312 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Counsel For Shri N.V. Balaji, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Shankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor – General Of India For Shri A.P.Srinivas, Sr. Standing Counsel : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.07.2023 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023

transfer of shares and not dividend. RBI intimation made by the assessee is for _FEMA purposes and not for Income tax Act purposes. Therefore, RBI intimation made by the assessee cannot govern or determine the tax liability under the Income tax Act. Hence, reliance cannot be placed on RBI intimation for income tax liability. The impugned transaction of 'purchase

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. P.SRINIVASA GOPAL, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

transfer of share were disclosed by the company and tax paid duly. (iv) Thus the company had not only received substantial benefit in the form of interest free loan from the assessee as well as gained in sale of shares to the assessee. (v) Thus the balance amount payable by the assessee to the company on account of purchase

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 688/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 98-A, 7Th Floor, V. Income Tax, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Corporate Circle – 6(2), Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacs 8779 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

deemed to have been shifted to foreign jurisdiction. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Panel found that LIBOR rate of interest has to be applied. 5. The main object of transfer pricing adjustment provided under the scheme of Income-tax Act is to prevent the assessee from eroding the tax base in one country and shifting the profit to other country

TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HOSUR vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

dividend income and there is no separate administrative expenditure incurred for the aforementioned purpose. e. The learned AO/DRP erred in not directing the AO to observe the fact that disallowance under section 14A towards exempt income cannot exceed the actual income received by the appellant. Ground 5: Apportionment of the common expenses on the basis of turnover for the purpose

TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HOSUR vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

deemed associated enterprise without analyzing the evidence and documents provided to substantiate that non associated enterprises to whom the products are sold do not qualify termed as Associated Enterprises (AES) as per the provisions as contained within Section 92A(1) or 92A (2) of the Act; and e. In determining the royalty income and consequently making an adjustment computation

SUNDARAM FASTNERS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-6(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2501/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.92/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Sundram Fasteners Limited Ito बनाम/ 98-A, 7Th Floor, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Corporate Ward-6(1) Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacs-8779-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

dividend income was received should not be considered for the purposes of computing the disallowance, which has been allowed by ITAT in appellant's own case for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14. 3.5 The AO/DRP failed to appreciate that the appellant had already disallowed Rs.12,98,058/- in its ROI dated 15.02.2021 (computed based on Rule

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

transfer pricing as per the provisions of the Act read with the rules. b. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant provided the corporate guarantee for its own investment and benefit, as a parental act/ obligation to its then newly created AEs and was a procedural compliance for availing the loan. c. Erred in not appreciating the fact