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

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.393/Chny/2018 & आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.89/Chny/2018 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Titan Company Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income No.3, Spicot Industrial Complex, Vs. Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. Ltu-2, [Pan: Aaact 5131A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

37 of the 1961 Act. However, the High Court has failed to notice the "reversal" which constituted part of the data systematically maintained by the assessee over last decade. 18. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 5.2.07 and accordingly the civil appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with

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

37(1) of the Act, without appreciating the evidences/ submissions furnished by the Appellant in this regard. 5.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP have erred in ~lowing the expenditure incurred by the Appellant towards management fees to its AE's - .:: appreciating that the same were incurred wholly and exclusively

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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

10 -:\nITA No.690/Chny/2020\nJeypore Sugar Mills Ltd fraudulently sold the lend and that there was no\nsale deed executed in favour of assesse has been held wrongly against\nthe assesse by CIT Appeals and AO which is baseless to conclude that\nthe assesse did not purchase the residential property when assesse has\npaid the entire purchase consideration and the assesse

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. Under Section 80-IA(8) of the Act, one of the pre-requisites for the AO to not grant the deduction as claimed by the Assessee in his return is where the AO finds that the consideration at which transfers were made of goods and services of the eligible business as recorded in its accounts "does not correspond

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. Under Section 80-IA(8) of the Act, one of the pre-requisites for the AO to not grant the deduction as claimed by the Assessee in his return is where the AO finds that the consideration at which transfers were made of goods and services of the eligible business as recorded in its accounts "does not correspond

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

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

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 provisions. Accordingly, the first plea of the assessee is\nhereby rejected.\n5.3 The next issue now to be adjudicated is the ALP value of the\nguarantee commission. In this regard, the Ld. AR has relied on the quote\nprovided by Bank(s) in which they have proposed to extend bank\nguarantee at 0.325% and has urged that

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

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] 55[(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.] (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

M/S ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD,NANDANAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 [1] , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed