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...

Transfer Pricing Guidelines, that instead of benchmarking the aggregating all the transactions and then benchmarking the same on the basis of TNMM (transactional net margin method), it is desirable that “transaction relating to brand building is benchmarked separately” and on the basis of the CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) Method. The TPO, thereafter, discussed in detail

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...

Transfer Pricing Guidelines, that instead of benchmarking the aggregating all the transactions and then benchmarking the same on the basis of TNMM (transactional net margin method), it is desirable that “transaction relating to brand building is benchmarked separately” and on the basis of the CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) Method. The TPO, thereafter, discussed in detail

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...

Transfer Pricing Guidelines, that instead of benchmarking the aggregating all the transactions and then benchmarking the same on the basis of TNMM (transactional net margin method), it is desirable that “transaction relating to brand building is benchmarked separately” and on the basis of the CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) Method. The TPO, thereafter, discussed in detail

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

permanent establishment existing in the form of a branch or an office in India does not arise. Further, nowhere in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has concluded that a PE existing for any of the NRRI to whom the assessee has ceded the re-insurance premium. As regards, the observations of the AO with regard to the agency

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

permanent establishment existing in the form of a branch or an office in India does not arise. Further, nowhere in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has concluded that a PE existing for any of the NRRI to whom the assessee has ceded the re-insurance premium. As regards, the observations of the AO with regard to the agency

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

permanent establishment existing in the form of a branch or an office in India does not arise. Further, nowhere in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has concluded that a PE existing for any of the NRRI to whom the assessee has ceded the re-insurance premium. As regards, the observations of the AO with regard to the agency

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

permanent establishment existing in the form of a branch or an office in India does not arise. Further, nowhere in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has concluded that a PE existing for any of the NRRI to whom the assessee has ceded the re-insurance premium. As regards, the observations of the AO with regard to the agency

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

permanent establishment existing in the form of a branch or an office in India does not arise. Further, nowhere in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has concluded that a PE existing for any of the NRRI to whom the assessee has ceded the re-insurance premium. As regards, the observations of the AO with regard to the agency

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

permanent establishment existing in the form of a branch or an office in India does not arise. Further, nowhere in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has concluded that a PE existing for any of the NRRI to whom the assessee has ceded the re-insurance premium. As regards, the observations of the AO with regard to the agency

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

permanent establishment existing in the form of a branch or an office in India does not arise. Further, nowhere in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has concluded that a PE existing for any of the NRRI to whom the assessee has ceded the re-insurance premium. As regards, the observations of the AO with regard to the agency

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AVT MC CORMICK INGREDIENTS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Transfer pricing-Arms' Length price-Payment of royalty to AE-Assessee engaged in business of manufacturing and trading of glass fibre products and articles thereof was provided technical assistance by Netherlands and claimed that quantum of royalty payment was at 5% and 4% of net of its sales- TPO restricted payment of royalty to 2% of net sales made

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AVT MC CORMICK INGREDIENTS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Transfer pricing-Arms' Length price-Payment of royalty to AE-Assessee engaged in business of manufacturing and trading of glass fibre products and articles thereof was provided technical assistance by Netherlands and claimed that quantum of royalty payment was at 5% and 4% of net of its sales- TPO restricted payment of royalty to 2% of net sales made

AVT MC CORMICK INGREDIENTS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Transfer pricing-Arms' Length price-Payment of royalty to AE-Assessee engaged in business of manufacturing and trading of glass fibre products and articles thereof was provided technical assistance by Netherlands and claimed that quantum of royalty payment was at 5% and 4% of net of its sales- TPO restricted payment of royalty to 2% of net sales made

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AVT MC CORMICK INGREDIENTS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Transfer pricing-Arms' Length price-Payment of royalty to AE-Assessee engaged in business of manufacturing and trading of glass fibre products and articles thereof was provided technical assistance by Netherlands and claimed that quantum of royalty payment was at 5% and 4% of net of its sales- TPO restricted payment of royalty to 2% of net sales made

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. POLARIS CONSULTING & SERVICES P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

established is then taken into account to arrive at an arm's length price in relation to the international transaction.” 25. In this case, Transaction Net Margin Method is the most appropriate method adopted both by the assessee and Transfer Pricing Officer. A bare reading of Rule 10B(1)(e) shows that the net profit margin realized by an enterprise

POLARIS CONSULTING & SERVICES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

established is then taken into account to arrive at an arm's length price in relation to the international transaction.” 25. In this case, Transaction Net Margin Method is the most appropriate method adopted both by the assessee and Transfer Pricing Officer. A bare reading of Rule 10B(1)(e) shows that the net profit margin realized by an enterprise

POLARIS SOFTWARE LAB LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

established is then taken into account to arrive at an arm's length price in relation to the international transaction.” 25. In this case, Transaction Net Margin Method is the most appropriate method adopted both by the assessee and Transfer Pricing Officer. A bare reading of Rule 10B(1)(e) shows that the net profit margin realized by an enterprise