DCIT, CHENNAI vs. FLAKT (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1032/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The assessee has adopted Transaction Net 6 I.T.A. No.1032/Mds/14 Margin Method as most appropriate method for the purpose of transfer pricing adjustment. For the purpose of Transaction Net Margin Method, the net profit margin realized by the enterprises from international transaction entered with Associate Enterprise, is computed

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

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

transfer pricing as provided in Indian Income-tax Act. Section 92B of the Act defines “international transaction”. “Associated Enterprise” is defined in Section 92A of the Act. Rule 10B of Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides most appropriate method for determination of arm's length price. Rule 10B(1

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

transfer pricing as provided in Indian Income-tax Act. Section 92B of the Act defines “international transaction”. “Associated Enterprise” is defined in Section 92A of the Act. Rule 10B of Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides most appropriate method for determination of arm's length price. Rule 10B(1

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

transfer pricing as provided in Indian Income-tax Act. Section 92B of the Act defines “international transaction”. “Associated Enterprise” is defined in Section 92A of the Act. Rule 10B of Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides most appropriate method for determination of arm's length price. Rule 10B(1

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

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

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

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

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

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

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

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

DCIT, PONDICHERRY vs. TWEEZERMAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD., PONDICHERRY

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer determined the 7 I.T.A. No.2401/Mds/14 profit, after determining the arithmetic mean at 38.40%, at `11,39,48,865/-, whether the excess profit declared by the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act? This issue was examined by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3137/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 234C of the Act. 10. The Ld. AO has erred, in law and in facts, in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice of each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCIT (OSD),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2546/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax (Osd), 4/249A, Rasim Enclave, Corporate Circle –1(2), Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Near Savitha Dental College, Goparasanallur, Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. Pan: Aaccc7628P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2017

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 10. The learned AO has erred, in law and In facts, In initiating penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of the Act; 3. The Brief facts of the case that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cook Group Inc, USA which provides medical equipment services for its parent company. Cook India

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

1](Delhi) 2. Gruner India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT[ITA No.6794 of 2015-Delhi, ITAT] 3. A.W.Faber Castell (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA No.1027 of 2017- Mumbai, ITAT] The ld. AR submitted that in the case of A.W.Faber Castell (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, supra, pertaining to the A.Y. 2012-13 referred to the Press Note No.8

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

1](Delhi) 2. Gruner India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT[ITA No.6794 of 2015-Delhi, ITAT] 3. A.W.Faber Castell (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA No.1027 of 2017- Mumbai, ITAT] The ld. AR submitted that in the case of A.W.Faber Castell (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, supra, pertaining to the A.Y. 2012-13 referred to the Press Note No.8

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

NIPPON PAINT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.779/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 92C(1) of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’). 2.5 Erred on facts by comparing the Appellant with the well established companies in applying the BLT. Further, erred on facts and in law in making transfer pricing

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