ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPUR vs. SRI SHANMUGAVEL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

10 :: (i) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market; or (ii) the arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA.” 18. As regards the above, the Ld.AR submitted that the explanation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 Prabhu Spining Mills Private 121, Adarns Plaza, Vs. Limited, 60, Feet Road, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 602. Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

10. “43………... Interestingly, much water has been flown after A.Y.2017-18 by way of insertion of the Explanation to Section 80IA(8) of the Act whereby the decision of the market value has been provided by the assessee. In view of the above, none of the judgments relied upon by the assessee are applicable to the facts of the present case

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

price ought to have been Rs.56.36/share. The Ld.AO consequently made an addition of Rs.42,29,48,758/- invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11UA. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the findings of the Ld.AO. The assessee is assailing the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) dated

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

price or payment in kind or adjustment towards debt or for monetary\nconsideration. That the issue of ownership and possession nowhere\nform part of the provision and concept of transfer is alien to it.\n7.\nThe CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note of judgment in CIT vs\nDr.Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (1995 211 ITR 804 (Bom) wherein

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 order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was completed after the conclusion of the search, wherein the TPO proposed TP downward adjustment of Rs.407.25 crores on the imports from MIPP. The TPO did not propose any adjustment on the receipt of share capital reported in the Form 3CEB. The assessee had filed appeal against

SHIR. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

20 ODC Cash Main office (10,87,87,758) Coolie & Wages – 31.03.2019 Natham 2020- Coolies and wages Various 17,65,97,837 Cash 21 dates 2021- Coolies and wages Various 52,55,10,803 Cash 22 dates 26. It is noted that, in AY 2016-17, the assessee had debited cash expenses under the head ‘Fuel Expenses-Diesel’ account

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL ,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

20 ODC Cash Main office (10,87,87,758) Coolie & Wages – 31.03.2019 Natham 2020- Coolies and wages Various 17,65,97,837 Cash 21 dates 2021- Coolies and wages Various 52,55,10,803 Cash 22 dates 26. It is noted that, in AY 2016-17, the assessee had debited cash expenses under the head ‘Fuel Expenses-Diesel’ account

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

20 ODC Cash Main office (10,87,87,758) Coolie & Wages – 31.03.2019 Natham 2020- Coolies and wages Various 17,65,97,837 Cash 21 dates 2021- Coolies and wages Various 52,55,10,803 Cash 22 dates 26. It is noted that, in AY 2016-17, the assessee had debited cash expenses under the head ‘Fuel Expenses-Diesel’ account

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

20 ODC Cash Main office (10,87,87,758) Coolie & Wages – 31.03.2019 Natham 2020- Coolies and wages Various 17,65,97,837 Cash 21 dates 2021- Coolies and wages Various 52,55,10,803 Cash 22 dates 26. It is noted that, in AY 2016-17, the assessee had debited cash expenses under the head ‘Fuel Expenses-Diesel’ account

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1010/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Eaton Power Quality Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Pondicherry Circle, Puducherry 605 111, Pondicherry. Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 35/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Eaton Power Quality Private The Assessing Officer, Limited, V. National E-Assessment Centre, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Delhi. Puducherry 605 111, Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishal Kalra, Advocate : Shri. S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

20. Much has been stated about the use of the words in the computation itself, such as ‘may’, ‘shall’, the absence of reference to ‘month’ as it may have led to an ambiguity of whether the period should be reckoned as 30 or 31 days and the absence of the phrase ‘no order shall be made’ as used in Section

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

10 :: No order as to costs. A copy of this judgment may be sent to the Assessee forthwith.” 4.8 In view of the above decision supra, the legal position which emerges is that, the denial of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) will not disable the assessee from claiming normal deduction for the said R&D expenditure, both revenue & capital

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

10 :: No order as to costs. A copy of this judgment may be sent to the Assessee forthwith.” 4.8 In view of the above decision supra, the legal position which emerges is that, the denial of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) will not disable the assessee from claiming normal deduction for the said R&D expenditure, both revenue & capital

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

10) of section\n80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking\nreferred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the\nundertaking referred to in section 80-IA.\"\nSection 801A of the Act\n“(8) Where any goods or services held for the purposes of the eligible\nbusiness are transferred

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

10) of section\n80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking\nreferred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the\nundertaking referred to in section 80-IA.”\n\nSection 801A of the Act\n“(8) Where any goods or services held for the purposes of the eligible\nbusiness are transferred

HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

transfer pricing provisions rather than making these provisions unworkable. That meaning had to be a dominant influence which leads to de facto control over the other enterprise rather than an influence simplictor. If we are to adopt literal meaning of influence, as has been adopted by the authorities below, all the transactions on negotiated prices will

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

20,58,141/-, which was revised subsequently on 16.09.2015 admitting loss of Rs.68,12,68,141/-. 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

GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

10,06,350/-. Subsequently, the\nreturn of income was revised on 15.03.2019 declaring the total income at\n₹.9,98,850/-. On the basis of information collected during the course of\nassessment proceedings in the case of CRCL, where the assessee is a\npartner, the Assessing Office reopened the assessment for AY 2017-18\nunder section

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

transfer pricing provisions. Accordingly, the first plea of the assessee is hereby rejected. 5.3 The next issue now to be adjudicated is the ALP value of the guarantee commission. In this regard, the Ld. AR has relied on the quote provided by Bank(s) in which they have proposed to extend bank guarantee at 0.325% and has urged that