COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove. 41. Having regard to the language of section 14A(2) of the Act, read with rule

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

4 I.T.A. No.1218, 765 & 615/Mds/16 mandatory to maintain separate books one for eligible 10A unit and another for non-eligible 10A unit. The assessee being Indian multinational company, eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act, therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the Principal Commissioner is not justified in applying average profit of assessee

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

4 I.T.A. No.1218, 765 & 615/Mds/16 mandatory to maintain separate books one for eligible 10A unit and another for non-eligible 10A unit. The assessee being Indian multinational company, eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act, therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the Principal Commissioner is not justified in applying average profit of assessee

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

4 I.T.A. No.1218, 765 & 615/Mds/16 mandatory to maintain separate books one for eligible 10A unit and another for non-eligible 10A unit. The assessee being Indian multinational company, eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act, therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the Principal Commissioner is not justified in applying average profit of assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Transfer Pricing Officer-III, Chennai as required under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The TPO determined the arms length price at ₹. 239.54 crores and shortfall in the operating profit at ₹. 32.63 crores. This shortfall was directed to be brought to tax as per section 92C(4) of the Act. 3.2 On appeal, it was the submission before

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Transfer Pricing Officer-III, Chennai as required under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The TPO determined the arms length price at ₹. 239.54 crores and shortfall in the operating profit at ₹. 32.63 crores. This shortfall was directed to be brought to tax as per section 92C(4) of the Act. 3.2 On appeal, it was the submission before

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Transfer Pricing Officer-III, Chennai as required under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The TPO determined the arms length price at ₹. 239.54 crores and shortfall in the operating profit at ₹. 32.63 crores. This shortfall was directed to be brought to tax as per section 92C(4) of the Act. 3.2 On appeal, it was the submission before

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD., CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Transfer Pricing Officer-III, Chennai as required under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The TPO determined the arms length price at ₹. 239.54 crores and shortfall in the operating profit at ₹. 32.63 crores. This shortfall was directed to be brought to tax as per section 92C(4) of the Act. 3.2 On appeal, it was the submission before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

price whichever is lower. The appellant contended that the stand of the AO is not correct also the statement recorded during the survey has no evidentiary value. The appellant also submitted that this component of stock difference does not represent the value of any excess quantity of stock found during the course of survey in relation to the stock register

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

transfer pricing regulation as per which adjustment on account of any international transaction is required to be made as per the method prescribed. The learned CIT (DR) pointed out that the TPO in respect of the nine services not availed by the Assessee has treated the payment as nil since no independent party would make any payment for services

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

transfer pricing regulation as per which adjustment on account of any international transaction is required to be made as per the method prescribed. The learned CIT (DR) pointed out that the TPO in respect of the nine services not availed by the Assessee has treated the payment as nil since no independent party would make any payment for services

VISUAL GRAPHICS COMPUTING SERVICES INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CO CLE III (4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 28

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2340/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

Transfer Pricing will be dealt with in the later part of this order. Vide its grounds 2 & 3, assessee assail exclusion of 3. telecommunication and foreign travel expenditure from its export turnover while computing the eligible deduction under section 10A of the Act. There is also an alternative claim that sums excluded from export turnover were to be excluded from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

price whichever is lower. The appellant\ncontended that the stand of the AO is not correct also the statement recorded\nduring the survey has no evidentiary value. The appellant also submitted that\nthis component of stock difference does not represent the value of any\nexcess quantity of stock found during the course of survey in relation to the\nstock register

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

price whichever is lower. The appellant\ncontended that the stand of the AO is not correct also the statement recorded\nduring the survey has no evidentiary value. The appellant also submitted that\nthis component of stock difference does not represent the value of any\nexcess quantity of stock found during the course of survey in relation to the\nstock register

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

section 10A of the Act. 4. Ground Nos.1 & 4 are general in nature. Ground Nos.2 & 3 are related to transfer pricing

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 -:

10A(b) to mean : `a transaction between enterprises other than associated enterprises..’. So the price in an uncontrolled transaction is a price of some actual transaction between enterprises other than AEs. Such price is then adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international :- 22 -: transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transaction. The adjusted price is taken

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

4 of7 the case of CIT Vs. GE Thermometrics India Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 876/2008 in which while dealing the omission sub- section (9) of Section 1 OB the Hon'ble High Court has held that once the section is omitted from the statute book, the result is it had never been passed and be considered

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SENSIPLE SOFTWARE SOLUTION PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 10A of the Act by holding that the numerator and denominator should be of same figure. In other words, the export turnover and total turnover shall include the same expenditure and the receipts. No doubt, the expenditure incurred in the foreign currency towards internet and foreign travel expenses cannot form part of export turnover of the assessee. If that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MPS TECHNOLGOIES LTD., CHENNAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1385/Chny/2014 (िनधा4रण वष4 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Mps Technologies Ltd. Acit (Now Merged With Mps Ltd.) Company Circle-Iv(3), बनाम/ Rr Tower-4, 4Th Floor Super A, Chennai. Vs. 16&17, Tvk Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-0205-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1120/Chny/2014 (िनधा4रण वष4 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit M/S. Mps Technologies Ltd. Company Circle-Iv(3), (Now Merged With Mps Ltd.) बनाम/ Rr Tower -4, 4Th Floor Super A, Chennai. Vs. 16&17, Tvk Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-0205-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment to Rs.163.24 Lacs in its order dated 04.02.2014 wherein final set of comparable entities as well as their respective margins have been revised as under: - No. Name of Company OP/TC 1. Cosmic Global Ltd. 44.04% 2. Microgenetics Systems Ltd. -2.81% 3. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. -1.01% 4. Informed Technologies Ltd. 19.25% 5. R. Systems International