SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.71/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.88/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Dcit Private Limited Corporate Circle-2(1) (Formerly Known As Gamesa Renewable Chennai. बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Before That Known As Gamesa Wind Vs. Turbine Pvt.Ltd.) 334, Futura Tech Park, 8Th Floor, Block B Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg-6027-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld.Ar !थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sasi Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Have Identical Facts & Issues. The Appeal For Ay 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 30-10-2017 Passed By Ld.

exempt income. Issue No. 6: Transfer Pricing Adjustment at entity level made without considering the parity basis: 8.Without prejudice to ground

AMBATTUR CLOTHING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing adjustment has to be made only in\nrespect of the transaction of the assessee being a tested party, with\nassociated enterprise outside the country after comparing the transaction\nmade by similarly placed company in uncontrolled transaction with non-\nAssociated Enterprise. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the order of\nthe Dispute Resolution Panel Accordingly the order

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

transfer pricing issues.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec 14A", "Sec 92CA(3)", "Sec 92C(3)", "Sec 43(1)", "Sec 43(6)", "Sec 32(1)(ii)", "Rule 8D" ], "issues": "1. Whether goodwill arising from amalgamation is eligible for depreciation. 2. Whether disallowance under Section 14A can exceed exempt

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

transfer pricing issues and disallowance under Section 14A, with decisions made on each point based on the facts and relevant legal precedents. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the extent of exempt

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

Transfer pricing documentation\nwithout providing any specific reasons for rejecting the same and without appreciating\nthe fact that they are functionally comparable\n5. TPO's comparable companies to be rejected\n5.1 The TPO has erred in conducting a fresh benchmarking study and selecting fresh\ncomparable companies (Elecon EPC Projects Ltd. [Merged], Jost'S Engineering Co.\nLtd., McNally Bharat Engg

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 ()

Transfer pricing (TP) adjustment of interest on loan to AE; (v) TP adjustment of corporate guarantee. 2. The Ld. AR referred to the earlier orders of Tribunal in assessee’s own case whereas Ld. CIT-DR referred to the findings of lower authorities. Having heard rival submissions upon perusal of case records, the issues are adjudicated as under. The assessee

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

M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCITCORPORATE CIRCLE1(1), 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

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), 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

M/S ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE, 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

YCH LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM, TAMILNADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -3(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ych Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech Sez Phase Ii, V. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacy-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Transfer Pricing documentation, its operating profit margin (as arrived at after factoring its entire management support services cost) were concluded at arm's length, thereby evidencing the arm's length nature of its international transactions; 2.5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) and the learned TPO erred in not considering that, the TPO adopted aggregated TNMM approach in earlier years

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of guarantee given for AE to 0.5% of the amount guaranteed. 3.2 The next issue on appeal is regarding disallowance u/.14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D and disallowed a sum of at Rs.67,80,000/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 18,90,000 under Rule

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

transfer pricing, since it\ndoes not have any bearing on profits, income, losses or assets of the\nassessee;\n2. 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have appreciated that, the corporate\nguarantees have been provided by the appellant as a stewardship\n/shareholder activity and not a business transaction that needs to be\nITA Nos.1402 & 1663/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20)\nM/s. Ashok

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

price of a product, apart from its market price, as prescribed in Section 80-IA(8) of the Act. According to us, the sale price cannot further be segregated by imputing price attributable to marketing and R&D efforts for the simple reason that there is no such provision contained in law. We agree with the Ld. AR that

TRIMEX INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

exempt income stood at Rs.100.72 crores. 10. Hence, for assessment year 2012-13, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs.51,29,547/- and in assessment year 2013-14, no disallowance IT(TP)A Nos.77 & 78/Chny/2022 & ITA Nos.993, 1035 & 1120/Chny/2022 should be made. As regards to value of investment under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3), CHENNAI vs. TRIMEX INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

exempt income stood at Rs.100.72 crores. 10. Hence, for assessment year 2012-13, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs.51,29,547/- and in assessment year 2013-14, no disallowance IT(TP)A Nos.77 & 78/Chny/2022 & ITA Nos.993, 1035 & 1120/Chny/2022 should be made. As regards to value of investment under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3), CHENNAI vs. TRIMEX INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

exempt income stood at Rs.100.72 crores. 10. Hence, for assessment year 2012-13, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs.51,29,547/- and in assessment year 2013-14, no disallowance IT(TP)A Nos.77 & 78/Chny/2022 & ITA Nos.993, 1035 & 1120/Chny/2022 should be made. As regards to value of investment under

SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2.1 The AO/DRP erred in confirming the adjustment of Rs.10,93,91,827/- to the Arms Length Price. 2.2 The AO/DRP erred in not appreciating that the Fertilizer Market Bulletins (FMB) contain only the range of prices of goods quoted for specific period. 2.3 The AO/DRP erred in not considering the fact that while computing the downward