ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Transfer Pricing Officer is\nreceived by him.]\n(6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) 27[, (1A)] and (2) shall apply to the following\nclasses of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the\nprovisions of 28[sub-sections (3), (5) and (5A)], be completed-\n(i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee

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 Officer and the TPO has passed order u/s.92CA of the Act dated 14.01.2015vide C.R. No.Y-603/TPO 3(2)/A.Y.2011-12, in which the TPO has recommended downward adjustment of Rs.7,40,95,333/- incurred to Management Support Services received from its Associated Enterprises YCH, Singapore. Thereafter the DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai passed draft assessment order u/s.143

INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

price, to the investor in the field of investments; the assessee's activity is designed in such a way that what it receives in the form of fee from the client for imparting financial education/ awareness is always higher than what is spent for imparting such education/ awareness to the said clients. It was further stated that the entire structure

INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

price, to the investor in the field of investments; the assessee's activity is designed in such a way that what it receives in the form of fee from the client for imparting financial education/ awareness is always higher than what is spent for imparting such education/ awareness to the said clients. It was further stated that the entire structure

SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2052/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 133(6) of the Act, software development constitutes 96% of its revenues. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer included this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., in the list of comparables as it qualified the functionality criterion. 17.1.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable submitting that this company

CATERPILLAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

The appeal stands 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.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

6) of the Act without granting the Appellant the reasonable opportunity of hearing. The learned AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in concluding that the said expenditures resulted in enduring benefit to the Appellant. 23. Ground on Disallowance of stamp duty charges Rs.27,27,050 The learned AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in disallowing

ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

transfer pricing documents page No.39 submitted by the assessee company, it was noticed by the TPO that while computing the margin, a part of expenditure amounting to Rs.7,26,74,144/- was segregated as expenditure towards the market development/Brand promotion expenses. 4.3 The assessee company claimed Rs.8.60 Cr. as operating cost and admitted the operating income of Rs.9.43 Cr. resulting

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ARMSTRONG INERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., CHENGALPUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

transfer pricing documents page No.39 submitted by the assessee company, it was noticed by the TPO that while computing the margin, a part of expenditure amounting to Rs.7,26,74,144/- was segregated as expenditure towards the market development/Brand promotion expenses. 4.3 The assessee company claimed Rs.8.60 Cr. as operating cost and admitted the operating income of Rs.9.43 Cr. resulting

ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENGALPUT vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

transfer pricing documents page No.39 submitted by the assessee company, it was noticed by the TPO that while computing the margin, a part of expenditure amounting to Rs.7,26,74,144/- was segregated as expenditure towards the market development/Brand promotion expenses. 4.3 The assessee company claimed Rs.8.60 Cr. as operating cost and admitted the operating income of Rs.9.43 Cr. resulting

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

10% No. of student fee 269 516 408 advances repaid by cash 52% 57% 32% SUMMARY OF TUITON FEE ADVANCES RECEIVED, AJUSTED AND REPAID YEAR ENDED 31.03.2006 31.03.2007 31.03.2008 No. of students who 43732 82980 88446 qualified in VITEE No. of students who 1965 2159 2220 attended counselling No. of Tuition fee advance 854 1115 211 received. No. of Tuition

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

10% No. of student fee 269 516 408 advances repaid by cash 52% 57% 32% SUMMARY OF TUITON FEE ADVANCES RECEIVED, AJUSTED AND REPAID YEAR ENDED 31.03.2006 31.03.2007 31.03.2008 No. of students who 43732 82980 88446 qualified in VITEE No. of students who 1965 2159 2220 attended counselling No. of Tuition fee advance 854 1115 211 received. No. of Tuition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

10% No. of student fee 269 516 408 advances repaid by cash 52% 57% 32% SUMMARY OF TUITON FEE ADVANCES RECEIVED, AJUSTED AND REPAID YEAR ENDED 31.03.2006 31.03.2007 31.03.2008 No. of students who 43732 82980 88446 qualified in VITEE No. of students who 1965 2159 2220 attended counselling No. of Tuition fee advance 854 1115 211 received. No. of Tuition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

10% No. of student fee 269 516 408 advances repaid by cash 52% 57% 32% SUMMARY OF TUITON FEE ADVANCES RECEIVED, AJUSTED AND REPAID YEAR ENDED 31.03.2006 31.03.2007 31.03.2008 No. of students who 43732 82980 88446 qualified in VITEE No. of students who 1965 2159 2220 attended counselling No. of Tuition fee advance 854 1115 211 received. No. of Tuition

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

10) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA.” Section 80IA of the Act “(8) Where any goods or services held for the purposes of the eligible business are transferred

M/S. VAASAUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURM vs. ACIT, COPRPORATE CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: - 2015-16 M/S.Vaasautomation India Pvt Ltd., The Asst.Commissioner Of Income Plot No.H18 & H19, Sipcot Industrial Tax(Osd), Park, Vallam Vadagal, Echoor Post, Corporate Circle-3(2), Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai Kancheepuram Dist, Kanchipuram-631604. [Pan: Aaach2759N] (अपीलार्थी/Assesse) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assesse By : Shri N.Venkatasubramanian, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024

Pricing Audit. Therefore, in the appellant's case, there is a greater degree of onus thrust upon the appellant to show whether the foreign Associate of the appellant has actually become bankrupt and is not in a position to repay its liabilities. In this connection, the appellant was asked to file details as to whether the company M/s. VAAS Europe

KELLER GROUND ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Transfer Pricing Officer and the TPO has passed order u/s.92CA of the Act dated 14.01.2015vide C.R. No.Y-603/TPO 3(2)/A.Y.2011-12, in which the TPO has recommended downward adjustment of Rs.7,40,95,333/- incurred to Management Support Services received from its Associated Enterprises YCH, Singapore. Thereafter the DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai passed draft assessment order u/s.143

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 adjustment. Further, it was held that where the PLI of the assessee under TNMM is at arm’s length and it is not possible on the part of the department to identify a comparable, which is rendering similar services, the question of considering CUP method would not arise at all. Since the assessee has stated that

M/S INNOVTIVE MICROFINANCE FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTIONS),CHENNAI CIRCLE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

viii. Does not charge any processing fees, Documentation charges and does not collect any collateral from the poor and provides loan at the door step of the borrower. ix. Does not offer multiple loans to the poor who borrow from us and helps prevents over indebtedness. x. Does not compound the interest or charge overdue interest or penal interest