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. 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

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

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.72/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.35/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.87/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. International Seaport Dredging Dcit / Jcit(Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-2(2) बनाम 5Th Floor, Challam Towers, Chennai. Old No.62, New No.113, / Vs. Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabci-2286-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A.Sasi Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: These Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Separate Orders Of Assessments Framed By Ld.

transfer pricing adjustment towards lease rental payments for AY 2013-14 and upheld the other adjustments and disallowances for AY 2013-14. 1. Further for the AY 2014-15, the DRP allowed the exclusion of certain comparable companies for computation of the upward adjustment made towards income received from deputation of personnel, while upholding the other adjustments made

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

transfer Pricing Forum in its report. Even OECD has opined that such activity does not need any payments by receiver. 10.6 Finally in Para 6 of the TPO’s order it is held as under : “The ALP for the management fees calculated on an international transaction has not been determined by the assessee company in accordance with Section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

transfer Pricing Forum in its report. Even OECD has opined that such activity does not need any payments by receiver. 10.6 Finally in Para 6 of the TPO’s order it is held as under : “The ALP for the management fees calculated on an international transaction has not been determined by the assessee company in accordance with Section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

transfer Pricing Forum in its report. Even OECD has opined that such activity does not need any payments by receiver. 10.6 Finally in Para 6 of the TPO’s order it is held as under : “The ALP for the management fees calculated on an international transaction has not been determined by the assessee company in accordance with Section

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

pricing scrutiny and the TPO in the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act had found these specified domestic transactions to be at arm’s ITA Nos.554 & 561/Chny/2023 (AY 2018-19) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 25 :: length and no adverse inference was drawn u/s 80-IA(8) of the Act. Having regard to these contemporaneous facts, we find merit

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

pricing scrutiny and the TPO in the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act had found these specified domestic transactions to be at arm’s ITA Nos.554 & 561/Chny/2023 (AY 2018-19) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 25 :: length and no adverse inference was drawn u/s 80-IA(8) of the Act. Having regard to these contemporaneous facts, we find merit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. HITACHI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KANCHIPURAM

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपीलसं./IT(TP)A No.: 17/CHNY/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nHitachi Solutions India Private\nLimited,\nBlock 5, 10th Floor, 1/124,\nDLF IT Park, Shivaji Gardens,\nMount Poonamallee Road,\nChennai - 600 089.\nThe Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nVs. Corporate Circle- 1(1),\nNo.121, M.G.Road,\nChennai - 600 034.\n[PAN:AAACZ-1544-R]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर

section 115JB of the Act. 5. A reference was made u/s.92CA(1) of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer, Corporate Circle - 2(1), Chennai (“Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer” or “TPO”) for determination of the arm's length price ("ALP") of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprise ("AE”) dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. AATHMIKA HOLDINGS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

125 in his appellate/impugned order, according to which the FMV per IG3 share as per Rule 11UA was Rs.12.125/-. In light of this material fact which came to light in the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that, though the price negotiated and agreed upon between M/s Chidaatma Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and ILFS Realty Fund

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

price, which was much higher than the guideline value, which would normally have ended as a distress sale, under such circumstances, with much lesser consideration, the sale extracted much higher value which was incredible, considering overall circumstances under which such sale took place. The Assessee had paid these persons for such services, by way of commission, which totaled to about

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

price, which was much higher than the guideline value, which would normally have ended as a distress sale, under such circumstances, with much lesser consideration, the sale extracted much higher value which was incredible, considering overall circumstances under which such sale took place. The Assessee had paid these persons for such services, by way of commission, which totaled to about

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

pricing scrutiny and the TPO in the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act had found these specified domestic transactions to be at arm's length and no adverse inference was drawn u/s 80-IA(8) of the Act. Having regard to these contemporaneous facts, we find merit in the plea of the Ld. AR of the assessee that

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) LTU - II, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

pricing scrutiny and the TPO in the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act had found these specified domestic transactions to be at arm's length and no adverse inference was drawn u/s 80-IA(8) of the Act. Having regard to these contemporaneous facts, we find merit in the plea of the Ld. AR of the assessee that

AMEC FOSTER WHEELER INDIA PRIVATE 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.799/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Amec Foster Wheeler India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, 6Th Floor, Zenith Building, Corporate Circle-1(1), Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Chennai. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacf 3204C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022

Transfer Pricing Officer. The Assessee has produced all relevant evidences as noted above and the case-law cited by the learned CIT- DR in the case of M/s. Lite-on Mobile India Private Limited, Kancheepuram Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (supra) where there was no evidence furnished and as to whether the Associated Enterprises has provided services