ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

111 taxmann.com 338 (Mumbai - Trib.) - CIT v. M/s. Wheels India Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 513 (Madras) (AY 2012- 13) - Brakes India Limited vs. DCIT [2017] 56 ITR(T) 341 (Chennai -Trib.)” 6.4 In light of the above therefore, we hold that the lower authorities were not justified in curtailing the deduction u/s 35(2AB) in the pre- amended pre period

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BAHWAN CYBERTEK PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are partly\nallowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') u/s.92CA(1) of the Act for\ndetermination of Arms Length Price (\"ALP\") in respect of international transactions\nreported in Form No.3CEB. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (\"AO\") passed an\nassessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) of the Act proposing certain additions to\nthe total income.\n3.\nAggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) u/s.250

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing proceedings, the assessee has submitted that Letter of Comfort is a facility to avail credit by Parry America Inc. which is a subsidiary of the assessee company. Therefore, the assessee contented before the TPO that, the above facility is not a guarantee and the adjustment towards guarantee commission would not arise with reference to Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing proceedings, the assessee has submitted that Letter of Comfort is a facility to avail credit by Parry America Inc. which is a subsidiary of the assessee company. Therefore, the assessee contented before the TPO that, the above facility is not a guarantee and the adjustment towards guarantee commission would not arise with reference to Section

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PUDUCHERRY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

111. Puducherry. [PAN: AAACC 6943 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Vishal Kalra, Advocate (Virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 25.09.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 18.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred

GANESAN KANNAN,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITI, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, THOOTHUKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

111 taxmann.com 387 (Delhi-Trib) Hon 'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Honda Trading Corporation, Japan vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1132/Kol/2015, order dated 15/09/2015 Hon'ble coordinate bench of Bangalore Tribunal in case of Volvo India private limited Vs. ACIT IT(TP)A No.1537/Bang/2012 dated 8/5/2019 and Acer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 502/Bang/2017 dated

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

111 of the case laws paper book): • We have gone through the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and from plain reading of section, it is clear that the same can be invoked only where the assessee receives a property for an inadequate consideration and in the present case before us, the assessee company only brought back

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

111 of the case laws paper book): • We have gone through the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and from plain reading of section, it is clear that the same can be invoked only where the assessee receives a property for an inadequate consideration and in the present case before us, the assessee company only brought back

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

transfer of asset and the value adopted for stamp duty valuation was apparently not less than 10% tolerance margin which has been brought into effect from 1-4-2021 in the first proviso to section 43CA and therefore, the Tribunal in its wisdom had restored the matter to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication (supra). Before us, admittedly

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

transfer of asset and the value adopted for stamp duty valuation was apparently not less than 10% tolerance margin which has been brought into effect from 1-4-2021 in the first proviso to section 43CA and therefore, the Tribunal in its wisdom had restored the matter to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication (supra). Before us, admittedly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

transfer of asset and the value adopted for stamp duty valuation was apparently not less than 10% tolerance margin which has been brought into effect from 1-4-2021 in the first proviso to section 43CA and therefore, the Tribunal in its wisdom had restored the matter to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication (supra). Before us, admittedly

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

price was met out of sale proceeds of land at Kammaguda, Turkyamjal village, inherited by the assessee from his mother long back, during the Financial Year 2006-07. It is apt to mention that the Assessing Officer herself has by her order dated 03.03.2015 U/s144 r.w.s 147of the Income Tax Act, for the Ay 2007-08, has levied capital gains

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

price was met out of sale proceeds of land at Kammaguda, Turkyamjal village, inherited by the assessee from his mother long back, during the Financial Year 2006-07. It is apt to mention that the Assessing Officer herself has by her order dated 03.03.2015 U/s144 r.w.s 147of the Income Tax Act, for the Ay 2007-08, has levied capital gains

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

price was met out of sale proceeds of land at Kammaguda, Turkyamjal village, inherited by the assessee from his mother long back, during the Financial Year 2006-07. It is apt to mention that the Assessing Officer herself has by her order dated 03.03.2015 U/s144 r.w.s 147of the Income Tax Act, for the Ay 2007-08, has levied capital gains

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

price was met out of sale proceeds of land at Kammaguda, Turkyamjal village, inherited by the assessee from his mother long back, during the Financial Year 2006-07. It is apt to mention that the Assessing Officer herself has by her order dated 03.03.2015 U/s144 r.w.s 147of the Income Tax Act, for the Ay 2007-08, has levied capital gains

M/S. GRT JEWELLERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

Price (ALP) of Specified Domestic Transactions of the assessee u/s. 92CA of the Act. The TPO, vide their order dated 29.01.2023, has proposed downward adjustment of Rs.1,07,28,724/-, in respect of transactions of inter-unit :-8-: ITA. No: 113/Chny/2024 transfer of power generated by Wind Energy Generators. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order u/s. 144C

SUNTEC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm’s length price of international transaction undertaken by the assessee with its AE. The TPO passed an order u/s.92CA of the Act on 23.10.2023 wherein, he proposed downward adjustment of Rs.1,42,01,590/- being the arm’s length price of the salary paid to global sales personnel. The reasoning

SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly.\n15. In result, appeal of both the assessees in ITA No. 1172 & 1173/Chny/2025\nare allowed and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

transfer\nof asset and the value adopted for stamp duty valuation was apparently\nnot less than 10% tolerance margin which has been brought into effect\nfrom 1-4-2021 in the first proviso to section 43CA and therefore, the\nTribunal in its wisdom had restored the matter to the file of the A.O for\nfresh adjudication (supra). Before us, admittedly

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

111 taxmann.com 338\n(Mumbai - Trib.)\n- CIT v. M/s. Wheels India Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 513 (Madras) (AY 2012-\n13)\n- Brakes India Limited vs. DCIT [2017] 56 ITR(T) 341 (Chennai -Trib.)\"\n6.4\nIn light of the above therefore, we hold that the lower authorities\nwere not justified in curtailing the deduction