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

114^\nMachinery transferred\nfrom LU1 (Page 137 of\nPaperbook)\n(B)\n3,40,34,392\nTotal Machinery\ncapitalized in\nLU2 (C = A + B)\n20,54,26,506\n% of transferred\nmachinery from\nLU1 to total\nmachinery\n(B/C)\n16.57%\n^Annexure 5 to Additional Evidence petition dated 01.09.2025\n59. Thus, without prejudice to the primary contention that F.Y.14-15, which

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

114^ 3,40,34,392 20,54,26,506 16.57 % ^Annexure 5 to Additional Evidence petition dated 01.09.2025 58. Thus, without prejudice to the primary contention that F.Y.14-15, which is the year of formation, should be taken for computing the ratio of transferred machinery, the ld.AR submitted that even if F.Y.2013-14 is to be taken, the assessee would satisfy

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

114^\nMachinery transferred\nfrom LU1 (Page 137 of\nPaperbook)\n(B)\n3,40,34,392\nTotal Machinery\ncapitalized in\nLU2 (C = A + B)\n20,54,26,506\n% of transferred\nmachinery from\nLU1 to total\nmachinery\n(B/C)\n16.57%\n^Annexure 5 to Additional Evidence petition dated 01.09.2025\n\n58.\nThus, without prejudice to the primary contention that F.Y.14-15, which

MAHARAJA SIVAM INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, all the appeals stand restored back to the file of Ld

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Transfer pricing (TP) mechanism pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P.) Ltd. (195 Taxman 35). 5. Since the plea of Ld. AR contest very validity of jurisdiction of Ld. TPO, we deal with the same. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Texport

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, all the appeals stand restored back to the file of Ld

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Transfer pricing (TP) mechanism pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P.) Ltd. (195 Taxman 35). 5. Since the plea of Ld. AR contest very validity of jurisdiction of Ld. TPO, we deal with the same. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Texport

S.SARADHA,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, all the appeals stand restored back to the file of Ld

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Transfer pricing (TP) mechanism pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P.) Ltd. (195 Taxman 35). 5. Since the plea of Ld. AR contest very validity of jurisdiction of Ld. TPO, we deal with the same. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Texport

K.P.S.OIL MILLS,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, all the appeals stand restored back to the file of Ld

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Transfer pricing (TP) mechanism pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P.) Ltd. (195 Taxman 35). 5. Since the plea of Ld. AR contest very validity of jurisdiction of Ld. TPO, we deal with the same. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Texport

K.PARAMASIVAM,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, all the appeals stand restored back to the file of Ld

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Transfer pricing (TP) mechanism pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P.) Ltd. (195 Taxman 35). 5. Since the plea of Ld. AR contest very validity of jurisdiction of Ld. TPO, we deal with the same. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Texport

SIVAM AND COMPANY,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, all the appeals stand restored back to the file of Ld

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Transfer pricing (TP) mechanism pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P.) Ltd. (195 Taxman 35). 5. Since the plea of Ld. AR contest very validity of jurisdiction of Ld. TPO, we deal with the same. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Texport

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

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

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

114(f) of the evidence Act says: ‘The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case’. v. The issue of set off of brought of losses

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner, ‘(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price.\n9. Applicability of section 56(2)(viib)\nAt the outset, it is important to determine the applicability of Section\n56(2)(viib) of the Act to the facts of the present case. The Ld.AR submitted that\n:-7-:\nITA. No: 2601/Chny/2024\nthe purpose of introduction of this section will be determinative factor and\nsubmitted as under:\n9.1 Purpose

DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1885/Chny/2017 & 665/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2013-14 Doosan Power Systems India The Jcit / Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle -1(1), 16Th Floor, Dlf Square, Chennai. Jacaranda Marg, Near Nh-8, Dlf Phase-Ii, Gurgaon – 122 002. Pan: Aabcb 5946J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

transfer pricing assessment proceedings, not appreciating that the financial statements of the Company were available in the public domain. 5. The Ld. AO, Ld. TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law in violating the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules by rejecting Harita Techserv Ltd. (‘Harita

DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD,HARYANA vs. JCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1885/Chny/2017 & 665/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2013-14 Doosan Power Systems India The Jcit / Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle -1(1), 16Th Floor, Dlf Square, Chennai. Jacaranda Marg, Near Nh-8, Dlf Phase-Ii, Gurgaon – 122 002. Pan: Aabcb 5946J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

transfer pricing assessment proceedings, not appreciating that the financial statements of the Company were available in the public domain. 5. The Ld. AO, Ld. TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law in violating the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules by rejecting Harita Techserv Ltd. (‘Harita

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