T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex- ITA No.672/Chny/201 /Chny/2017 (AY 2012-13) M/s.TVS Motor Co. Ltd. M/s.TVS Motor Co. Ltd. :: 16 :: factory sale at Rs.2,15,56,000/ factory

DCIT , COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED , ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

transferred to the Central Government, State Government local\nauthority or any other statutory authority\"\n(also ref. CBDT Circular no. 14/2001 dated 9/11/2001)\nThus, as contained in the above clarification an assessee is entitled to\ndeduction under section 80IA only after the infrastructure facility is\ndeveloped and begins to operate. Further, as can be made out from\nthe section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

transferred to the Central Government, State Government local\nauthority or any other statutory authority\"\n(also ref. CBDT Circular no. 14/2001 dated 9/11/2001)\nThus, as contained in the above clarification an assessee is entitled to\ndeduction under section 80IA only after the infrastructure facility is\ndeveloped and begins to operate. Further, as can be made out from\nthe section

K.G. DENIM LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, TP-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1718/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 K G Denim Limited, Dcit, 1, Thenthirumalai, V. Tp-2(1), Jadayampalayam B.O., Chennai. Dhoddabavi, Coimbatore – 641 302. [Pan: Aaack-7940-C] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

4. The assessee in consequence to the Show Cause Notice had contended that the power purchase cost of TANGEDCO should not be the basis for comparison inasmuch the power purchase cost of the recipient which has to be seen and compared for the purpose of determining. Further, the assessee rebutted that it is erroneous to compare the price at which

GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

price. He argued that there is no element of transfer so as to attract\nthe provision of section 2(47) of the Act and hence there cannot be any\nlevy of tax on capital gain under section 45 of the Act on the event of\nintroduction of a new partner. He has further submitted that even if the\namount

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

Section 153 expires’. Excluding 31.12.2019, the period of 60 days would expire on 01.11.2019 and the transfer pricing orders thus ought to have been passed on 31.10.2019 or any date prior thereto. Incidentally, the Board, in the Central Action Plan also indicates the date by which the Transfer Pricing orders are to be passed as 31.10.2019. The impugned orders

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

11. Claim of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act – Grounds 3 to 9: The ld.AR submitted that the assessee has entered into a contract with M/s.Growth-Link Overseas Company Limited (“GLO”), whereby the assessee is a contract manufacturer of NIKE brand shoes of various models on behalf of GLO and supplies it to NIKE, as per the instance of NIKE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CHENNAI vs. SAINT - GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

transfer pricing adjustment would be non-est. Consequently, the assessee would cease to be an eligible assessee as defined u/s 144C(15)(b) of the Act and therefore, the machinery provisions of Section 144C of the Act would not get triggered in the assessee’s case. In such a scenario, the assessment in the case of the assessee ought

SAINT-GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NCC 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

transfer pricing adjustment would be non-est. Consequently, the assessee would cease to be an eligible assessee as defined u/s 144C(15)(b) of the Act and therefore, the machinery provisions of Section 144C of the Act would not get triggered in the assessee’s case. In such a scenario, the assessment in the case of the assessee ought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHY vs. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED, TRICHY

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

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

4) of section 153 of the Act in Transfer Pricing (hereinafter referred to "TP" cases. Thus the TP order in such cases is required to be passed 60 days before 30th Sept 2021, that is, 31st July 2021. Since 31st July 2021 does not fall under the window of section 3 of TOLA, no extension Is granted by TOLA

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

4. Division 20.04.2010 40,93,529 3.39 1,38,77,063 VII/2009-10 5. Division 18.08.2011 1,11,31,745 3.39 3,77,36,616 VIII/2011-12 Total 10,69,94,336 5. The TPO thus determined the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of electricity transferred from section

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

11 :: been so, then post introduction of SDT in Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation to goods or services means the arm‟s length price as defined in clause (ii) of Section 92F. If both the clauses exist then

BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS LIMITED ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.939/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of 1212, Trichy Road, Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 018. Vs. Corporate Circle-1, [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.946/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, 1212, Trichy Road, Central Circle-3(2), Vs. Coimbatore – 641 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Senthil Kumar, Cit : 15.05.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manomohan Das, J.M: Aforesaid Two Appeals Nos. Ita/939/Chny/2022 & Ita 946/Chny/ 2022 Filed By Assessee & Department Respectively Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 17-08-2022 For The

11,77,36,432/- on Co-generation power plant and Anaerobic Digester. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Appellant had claimed the allowance only on new asset acquired during the year which is well within the ambit of new asset as defined under section 4 of Section 32AC. 4. The learned CIT(A) without considering

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.939/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of 1212, Trichy Road, Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 018. Vs. Corporate Circle-1, [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.946/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, 1212, Trichy Road, Central Circle-3(2), Vs. Coimbatore – 641 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Senthil Kumar, Cit : 15.05.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manomohan Das, J.M: Aforesaid Two Appeals Nos. Ita/939/Chny/2022 & Ita 946/Chny/ 2022 Filed By Assessee & Department Respectively Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 17-08-2022 For The

11,77,36,432/- on Co-generation power plant and Anaerobic Digester. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Appellant had claimed the allowance only on new asset acquired during the year which is well within the ambit of new asset as defined under section 4 of Section 32AC. 4. The learned CIT(A) without considering

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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

price or payment in kind or adjustment towards debt or for monetary\nconsideration. That the issue of ownership and possession nowhere\nform part of the provision and concept of transfer is alien to it.\n7.\nThe CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note of judgment in CIT vs\nDr.Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (1995 211 ITR 804 (Bom) wherein

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)

section 92C(3) of the Act proceeded to make adjustment to the inter-unit transfer of semi-finished products.. h. The Hon'ble DRP/learned AO/ TPO ought to have accepted the economic analysis performed in the TP report in support of arm's length price of Inter-unit transfer of Jewellery and watch units

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 -:

4 and 6 are accordingly dismissed. 9. Ground No.5 is against applying the provisions of section 92A(2)(i) of the Act for sale made to Apotex Corp and Apotex Signet treating as a deemed AE. 9.1 The Ld TPO/DRP has held that the Apotex group shall be treated as a deemed AE as per Section

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

11 to AY 2015-16, the assessee was engaged in setting up a 1440 MW coal based thermal mega power plant comprising 4 Units of 360 MW each at Chhattisgarh State (hereafter referred to as \"Project\"). The Project is funded by a consortium of lenders with more than 75% of the loans coming from Power Finance Corporation Limited and Rural