M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

113. [PAN AANCS 8126M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ITA Nos.398, 417, 557/Mds/15 :- 2 -: And C.O.No.45/Mds/2015 Assessee by : Shri. Percy Pardiwalla, Department by : Smt. Parminder Kaur, CIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21-06-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 15-09-2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

BANCA SELLA S.P.A. CHENNAI BRANCH (IT DIVISION),CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

113. [PAN AANCS 8126M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ITA Nos.398, 417, 557/Mds/15 :- 2 -: And C.O.No.45/Mds/2015 Assessee by : Shri. Percy Pardiwalla, Department by : Smt. Parminder Kaur, CIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21-06-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 15-09-2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

113. [PAN AANCS 8126M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ITA Nos.398, 417, 557/Mds/15 :- 2 -: And C.O.No.45/Mds/2015 Assessee by : Shri. Percy Pardiwalla, Department by : Smt. Parminder Kaur, CIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21-06-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 15-09-2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HOWDEN SOLYVENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 234B and 234D of the Act is consequential in nature.” Ground No.1 is general in nature. Ground No.8 has not pressed before us. Ground No.9 assails levy of interest u/s 234B & 234C. The same is consequential in nature which do not require any specific adjudication. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 are related with Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustment on management

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer pricing adjustment for fresh adjudication. Simultaneously, the assessee also challenged the order of Tribunal i.e., original order passed in ITA No.322/Mds/2016 dated 30.06.2016 and also challenged the Tribunal order passed in M.P. No.218/Mds/2016 dated 04.04.2017 before Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the Hon’ble High Court in Tax Case Appeal Nos.480 and 473 of 2017 vide order

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed