DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing provisions. Similarly, there is no clarity on the percentage on the commission to be charged since it is very fact specific. However, there are certain decision of Tribunal has emerged where these issues are dealt in detail and the Tribunal has given some indicator to determine the rate to be charged on guarantee commission. The Tribunal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing provisions. Similarly, there is no clarity on the percentage on the commission to be charged since it is very fact specific. However, there are certain decision of Tribunal has emerged where these issues are dealt in detail and the Tribunal has given some indicator to determine the rate to be charged on guarantee commission. The Tribunal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing provisions. Similarly, there is no clarity on the percentage on the commission to be charged since it is very fact specific. However, there are certain decision of Tribunal has emerged where these issues are dealt in detail and the Tribunal has given some indicator to determine the rate to be charged on guarantee commission. The Tribunal

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing provisions. Similarly, there is no clarity on the percentage on the commission to be charged since it is very fact specific. However, there are certain decision of Tribunal has emerged where these issues are dealt in detail and the Tribunal has given some indicator to determine the rate to be charged on guarantee commission. The Tribunal

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

pricing of the international transaction. 18.2 The assessee also submitted a detailed note on the various services availed by them under the terms of the agreement. Further, it was also submitted before the TPO that the AE party had identified the nature of stewardship/shareholder activities in each of the above department/services and such costs was excluded and not charged back

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

pricing of the international transaction. 18.2 The assessee also submitted a detailed note on the various services availed by them under the terms of the agreement. Further, it was also submitted before the TPO that the AE party had identified the nature of stewardship/shareholder activities in each of the above department/services and such costs was excluded and not charged back

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

115 Taxman 99), Supreme Court decision in CIT vs Lovely Exports P Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), the jurisdictional Madras High Court in CIT vs Electro Polychem Ltd [2007] 294 ITR 661, in which it has been held that share capital cannot be assessed under Section 68.\n7.5.12 The appellant further stated that the AO made the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

115\nTaxman 99), Supreme Court decision in CIT vs Lovely\nExports P Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), the jurisdictional\nMadras High Court in CIT vs Electro Polychem Ltd [2007]\n294 ITR 661, in which it has been held that share capital\ncannot be assessed under Section 68.\n7.5.12 The appellant further stated that the AO made the\naddition

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.269/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Cognizant Technology- The Asst. Commissioner- Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, 5/535, Okkiam, Thoriapakkam, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 096. [Pan:Aaacd 3312 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Counsel For Shri N.V. Balaji, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Shankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor – General Of India For Shri A.P.Srinivas, Sr. Standing Counsel : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.07.2023 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023

transfer of shares and not dividend. RBI intimation made by the assessee is for _FEMA purposes and not for Income tax Act purposes. Therefore, RBI intimation made by the assessee cannot govern or determine the tax liability under the Income tax Act. Hence, reliance cannot be placed on RBI intimation for income tax liability. The impugned transaction of 'purchase

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

115 ITR 243 (Mad) [FB]. It is true that in these two decisions it was said that unless the asset had cost something in terms of money for its acquisition, it was not possible to conceive of capital gains as envisaged by the statue though an asset of a capital nature has been transferred. The learned counsel also referred

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

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 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

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

115 O of the\nIncome Tax Act\n6. Payment of Central Sales Tax for its authorized operations.\n7. Payment of Service Tax under Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994 on\ntaxable services consumed for its authorized operation.\n8. Payment of VAT for the purchases made within the State of Tamil\nNadu under TN VAT Act.\n17. In compliance with

MPS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:761/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2012 – 2013 M/S. Mps Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Rr Tower Iv, Super A, Vs. Income Tax, No.16/17, Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 4(1), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan : Aaacm 2423L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment within the range, the learned Counsel for the Assessee has not argued any other exclusion or inclusion. 13. The next issue in this appeal of the Assessee is as regards to the disallowance of marked to market loss under normal provisions as well as the Minimum Alternative Tax [MAT] provisions, i.e. Section 115

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

115 O of the\nIncome Tax Act\n6. Payment of Central Sales Tax for its authorized operations.\n7. Payment of Service Tax under Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994 on\ntaxable services consumed for its authorized operation.\n8. Payment of VAT for the purchases made within the State of Tamil\nNadu under TN VAT Act.\n17. In compliance with