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

transfer of electricity to be Rs.10,69,94,336/- which in effect lead to the section 80-IA claim of the assessee being reduced by Rs.7,71,64,134/- (Rs.18,41,58,470 less Rs.10,69,94,336). 7. Aggrieved, the said issue was raised in appeal before the first appellate authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment can be examined with regard to the transactions falling u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this case reads as under:- 3. At the outset itself, the Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the grounds of appeal wherein the legal issue has been raised, which is as under: "A. Grounds

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 -:

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction … shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely’. :- 21 -: Clause (a) of rule 10B(1) prescribes the manner of determination of the ALP under the CUP method, which reads as under: “(a) comparable uncontrolled price method

AMBATTUR CLOTHING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing study report cannot\nbe considered to be sacrosanct as one has to analyse the nature of\ntransaction and the available data to apply a particular method as the\nmost appropriate method as provided under section 92C r/w rule 10B

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.72/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.35/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.87/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. International Seaport Dredging Dcit / Jcit(Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-2(2) बनाम 5Th Floor, Challam Towers, Chennai. Old No.62, New No.113, / Vs. Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabci-2286-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A.Sasi Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: These Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Separate Orders Of Assessments Framed By Ld.

10B(1)(a)(i) of the Rules, the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions, is to be identified. Thus, for the purpose of applying CUP method, the services rendered by the appellant have to be compared with price paid for similar services received by parties

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

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

transfer of electricity to be\nRs.10,69,94,336/- which in effect lead to the section 80-IA claim of the assessee\nbeing reduced by Rs.7,71,64,134/- (Rs.18,41,58,470 less Rs.10,69,94,336).\n7. Aggrieved, the said issue was raised in appeal before the first appellate\nauthority, i.e., the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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 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

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

NVH INDIA AUTO PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2773/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nvh India Auto Parts Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income-Tax, B-68, Sipcot Industrial Park, Corporate Circle -4(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbadur Nungambakkam, Taluk, Kancheepuram – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaccn-2857-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle - 4(2), Chennai ('the Assessing Officer/1 'AO") for the aforesaid assessment year (AY") on the following among other grounds: TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS 2. The AO / Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO') and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) have erred in law and facts

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE, 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

10B and Rule 10C of the Rules and the jurisdiction of the TPO is restricted to the powers conferred under Section 92CA of the Act. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the TPO shall be limited to computing the arm’s length price in accordance with the provisions of Section 92C(3) and cannot be extended to the other sections

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE - JAO - ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE, 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

10B and Rule 10C of the Rules and the jurisdiction of the TPO is restricted to the powers conferred under Section 92CA of the Act. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the TPO shall be limited to computing the arm’s length price in accordance with the provisions of Section 92C(3) and cannot be extended to the other sections

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1),CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

10B and Rule 10C of the Rules and the jurisdiction of the TPO is restricted to the powers conferred under Section 92CA of the Act. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the TPO shall be limited to computing the arm’s length price in accordance with the provisions of Section 92C(3) and cannot be extended to the other sections

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE - JAO - ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE, 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

10B and Rule 10C of the Rules and the jurisdiction of the TPO is restricted to the powers conferred under Section 92CA of the Act. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the TPO shall be limited to computing the arm’s length price in accordance with the provisions of Section 92C(3) and cannot be extended to the other sections

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1),CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

10B and Rule 10C of the Rules and the jurisdiction of the TPO is restricted to the powers conferred under Section 92CA of the Act. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the TPO shall be limited to computing the arm’s length price in accordance with the provisions of Section 92C(3) and cannot be extended to the other sections

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 ()

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions of sub- section (3) of 92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO, learned TPO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not considering multiple Year financial data of the comparable companies while determining the arm's length price' as prescribed under Rule 10B

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUNELVELI vs. LOYAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD, KOVILPATTI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

section 80IA(8) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 required determination of market value as per the arm’s length price mechanism prescribed u/s.92F read with Rule 10B. He also relied upon the Judgments of the following judgments: 1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court order in M/s. SAP Labs [TS-225-SC- 2023-TP] 2. ITAT Hyderabad

MOVATE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

10B(2)(b). The segmental details were part of the TP documentation and during the course of TP assessment the Assessee has taken extra efforts to get the said segmental audited as :-5-: ITA. No:2467/Chny/2024 well. Therefore, it is the contention of the Ld.AR that the segmental cannot be rejected. Further, the Ld.AR also contended that in case