K.G. DENIM LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, TP-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1718/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 K G Denim Limited, Dcit, 1, Thenthirumalai, V. Tp-2(1), Jadayampalayam B.O., Chennai. Dhoddabavi, Coimbatore – 641 302. [Pan: Aaack-7940-C] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

Transfer Pricing Officer having taken one permissible view that is sustainable in law, the said view cannot be faulted with by the CIT(TP), Chennai by invoking the powers in Section 263 of the Act in directing the TPO to adopt the another view permissible in law. In this regard, the Ld.AR placed a reliance upon the decision

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3137/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

Transfer Pricing Officer shall examine the issue in the light of the method prescribed under Rule 10B for the purpose of determination of the Arm's Length Price.” 5.2 We are in consonance with the facts that the Associated Enterprises rendered services and the payments have been made by the assessee company though assessee could not substantiate

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

nature of pricing of the international transaction. 18.2 The assessee also submitted a detailed note on the various services availed by them under the terms of the agreement. Further, it was also submitted before the TPO that the AE party had identified the nature of stewardship/shareholder activities in each of the above department/services and such costs was excluded

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

nature of pricing of the international transaction. 18.2 The assessee also submitted a detailed note on the various services availed by them under the terms of the agreement. Further, it was also submitted before the TPO that the AE party had identified the nature of stewardship/shareholder activities in each of the above department/services and such costs was excluded

NIPPON PAINT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.779/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

natural justice and bad in law 2.0 Grounds in relation to transfer pricing adjustment: The Learned transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) and the Learned

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCIT (OSD),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2546/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax (Osd), 4/249A, Rasim Enclave, Corporate Circle –1(2), Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Near Savitha Dental College, Goparasanallur, Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. Pan: Aaccc7628P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2017

Transfer Pricing Officer shall examine the issue in the light of the method prescribed under Rule 10B for the purpose of determination of the Arm's Length Price.” 5.2 We are in consonance with the facts that the Associated Enterprises rendered services and the payments have been made by the assessee company though assessee could not substantiate

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

HARLAND CLARKE HOLDING SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(2), CHENN

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

transfer pricing and various judicial precedence. Ground of objection 6— Non-grant of risk adjustment The TPO/AO and the Hon’ble DRP have erred, in law and facts, by not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the level of risk of the Assessee vis-à-vis the comparable companies under sub-rule(3) of Rule- 10B. Ground

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.72/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.35/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.87/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. International Seaport Dredging Dcit / Jcit(Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-2(2) बनाम 5Th Floor, Challam Towers, Chennai. Old No.62, New No.113, / Vs. Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabci-2286-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A.Sasi Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: These Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Separate Orders Of Assessments Framed By Ld.

natural justice, violative of provisions of the Act, devoid of merits, without appreciating the facts involved, without appreciating the documents submitted in proper light, without conducting adequate inquiries and as such is without jurisdiction. 2. Transfer Pricing

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

justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the revenue for adjudication.\n3.\nThe revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14:\n“2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 56(1) of the IT Act, amounting to Rs.615.34 crores, being income from other sources

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1834/Chny/2017 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Iljin Automotive Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Corporate Circle-2(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

natural justice and bad in law. 2. Grounds in relation to transfer pricing adjustment The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') and the learned

VESTAS WIND TECHOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.177/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Vestas Wind Technology India The Assistant Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Corporate Circle 3(2), Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaaca 9274 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

justice requires that the corresponding cost incurred for earning the miscellaneous income also requires to be excluded. After reproducing the show cause notice dated 03.11.2014, the Transfer Pricing Officer found at para 9.1 that the shortfall in revenue recognition from AMC, the adjustment thereunder requires no consideration as the service income from annual maintenance is proposed to be excluded while

VESTAS TECHNOLOGY R&D CHENNAI PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1540/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2010-11

transfer pricing study and determination of the PLI. 9. The first of the 12 comparables, is M/s.Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. A perusal of the Page No.385 of the assessee’s Paper Book shows that as per the companies profile, the company is providing software services predominantly onsite. It is a global technology corporation providing IT Consulting Services and Solutions

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

justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the revenue for adjudication.\n3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14:\n\"2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 56(1) of the IT Act, amounting to Rs.615.34 crores, being income from other sources

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer pricing adjustment for fresh adjudication. Simultaneously, the assessee also challenged the order of Tribunal i.e., original order passed in ITA No.322/Mds/2016 dated 30.06.2016 and also challenged the Tribunal order passed in M.P. No.218/Mds/2016 dated 04.04.2017 before Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the Hon’ble High Court in Tax Case Appeal Nos.480 and 473 of 2017 vide order