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 are deleted. Grounds No. 1 to 5 and 6(a) to 6(f) are allowed. 17 9. We further noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Finance Co. v. ACIT (supra) had considered the effect of omission of any provisions of the Act in light of Section 6 of the General Clauses

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

6) of the Act do not affect the right of the\namalgamated company to claim depreciation, as they would operate where an\nasset is acquired by amalgamating company, without incurring any financial\noutlay and such asset is transferred to amalgamated company without\nincurring any financial outlay. In the instant case, since excess consideration\npaid while initially acquiring the company prior

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 -:

transfer pricing regulations. 6. Ground 6 – Erroneous adoption of Transaction Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) as the most appropriate method for sale of goods 6.1. That the Ld. TPO and Hon’ble DRP erroneously applied a residual method i.e., TNMM, and made an adjustment of INR :- 7 -: 204,59,59,557. 6.2. That, without prejudice, the Hon’ble DRP while applying

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

6) of the Act do not affect the right of the\namalgamated company to claim depreciation, as they would operate where an\nasset is acquired by amalgamating company, without incurring any financial\noutlay and such asset is transferred to amalgamated company without\nincurring any financial outlay. In the instant case, since excess consideration\npaid while initially acquiring the company prior

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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

6) of the Act do not affect the right of the\namalgamated company to claim depreciation, as they would operate where an\nasset is acquired by amalgamating company, without incurring any financial\noutlay and such asset is transferred to amalgamated company without\nincurring any financial outlay. In the instant case, since excess consideration\npaid while initially acquiring the company prior

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

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 80-IA eligible windmill division of the assessee to the textile division of the assessee at Rs.10,69,94,336/-. The assessee on the other hand had taken the selling

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

11(9) of SEZ Rules. In this regard, we find that, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Gupta HUF Vs PCIT (ITA No. 246 of 2018) dated 26.02.2018 has held, in the context of Section 50C of the Act that, ITA No.870/Chny/2017 for AY 2012-13 & ITA Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020

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

6. It may be noted that the assessee claimed a deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act to the tune of Rs.18,41,58,470/- and the AO vide assessment order passed u/s.143(3)r.w.s.144C(3)r.w.s.144B dated 11.06.2021 in accordance with the value determined by TPO determined the ALP of the inter unit transfer of electricity to be Rs.10

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)

transfer pricing (TP) adjustment related to the claim u/s. 80IC ITA No.393/Chny/2015 & IT(TP)A No.89/Chny/2018 Titan Company Ltd. :- 3 -: of the Act. For the first two issues, the assessee placed reliance on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the Assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years, vide ITA Nos. 518, 505– 507/2018 dated

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

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

6) read with section 80IA(8) & (10) of the Act. In this regard, we find that, the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Harpreet Kaur (397 ITR 125) against which the SLP preferred by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

6) read with section 80IA(8) & (10) of the Act. In this regard, we find that, the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Harpreet Kaur (397 ITR 125) against which the SLP preferred by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex

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

6,39,837 0.64 15.35\nEnerk 2,12,60,091 21.26 510.24\n4.1 The share application money was received through banking channels with Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates. The receipt of the share application money and the allotment of shares were communicated to RBI in Form FCGPR. MJC being an \"associated enterprise\" as defined in Section 92CA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

price of a product, apart from its market price, as prescribed in Section 80-IA(8) of the Act. According to us, the sale price cannot further be segregated by imputing price attributable to marketing and R&D efforts for the simple reason that there is no such provision contained in law. We agree with the Ld. AR that

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

6 :: 10. According to the Ld AR, since the transfer pricing proceedings were barred by limitation of time, the order dated 01.11.2019 is void-ab-initio and accordingly, the transfer pricing adjustment is non-est. Consequently, the Assessee cease to be an eligible assessee as defined under section 144C(15)(b) of the Act; and therefore, the machinery provisions

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

6 :: 10. According to the Ld AR, since the transfer pricing proceedings were barred by limitation of time, the order dated 01.11.2019 is void-ab-initio and accordingly, the transfer pricing adjustment is non-est. Consequently, the Assessee cease to be an eligible assessee as defined under section 144C(15)(b) of the Act; and therefore, the machinery provisions

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

6) and (7) are not applicable in the present case.\n22. Coming to Sub-rule (9) of Rule 11, it is noted that this Rule applies\nto 'non-processing area' as well. The said sub-rule states that, the\ndeveloper shall not sell the land in a Special Economic Zone. According to\nthe assessee however, it has not sold