EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1010/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Eaton Power Quality Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Pondicherry Circle, Puducherry 605 111, Pondicherry. Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 35/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Eaton Power Quality Private The Assessing Officer, Limited, V. National E-Assessment Centre, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Delhi. Puducherry 605 111, Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishal Kalra, Advocate : Shri. S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 144C(13). An assessment involving issues of transfer pricing is thus measured by limitation at every step. 23. On the question

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 Prabhu Spining Mills Private 121, Adarns Plaza, Vs. Limited, 60, Feet Road, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 602. Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

section 80-IA(8) held that the average selling price by an assessee to TANGEDCO should be based on the tariff rates fixed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) for purchase of electricity generated by a windmill undertaking which during the year would have been as follows: Sl.N Name of wind Date of No. of units Tariff rate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPUR vs. SRI SHANMUGAVEL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

13. The Ld.AR further pointed out that the Ld.DR through his written submissions submitted that one cannot take the selling price of TANGEDCO as the market value of electricity since there were expenses to be incurred by TANGEDCO which do not exist in case of captive consumption. In the case of M/s.Sanghi Industries Ltd. referred to supra, the assessee

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.319/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Conferencecall – The Dy. Commissioner- Services India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No.135, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle-1(2), Old Airport Road, Chennai. Bangalore-560 017. [Pan: Aaccc 6574 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter ‘the TPO’) to determine the Arms Length Price (hereinafter ‘ALP’) in respect of the international transaction entered into by the assessee with its AE. Pursuant thereto, the TPO vide order dated 24.10.2016 made a downward adjustment of Rs.7,53,90,367/- in respect of the international transaction of the assessee. Pursuant thereto, the AO passed

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.393/Chny/2018 & आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.89/Chny/2018 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Titan Company Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income No.3, Spicot Industrial Complex, Vs. Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. Ltu-2, [Pan: Aaact 5131A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing (TP) adjustment related to the claim u/s. 80IC ITA No.393/Chny/2015 & IT(TP)A No.89/Chny/2018 Titan Company Ltd. :- 3 -: of the Act. For the first two issues, the assessee placed reliance on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the Assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years, vide ITA Nos. 518, 505– 507/2018 dated

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

price or payment in kind or adjustment towards debt or for monetary\nconsideration. That the issue of ownership and possession nowhere\nform part of the provision and concept of transfer is alien to it.\n7.\nThe CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note of judgment in CIT vs\nDr.Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (1995 211 ITR 804 (Bom) wherein

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

Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e) Records relating to the draft order; (f) Evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and (g) Result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it. (7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section (5),— (a) make such further

HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

transferred or services provided in the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction.” 8.6 This method stipulates that, firstly, the price paid for property in a comparable uncontrolled transaction is identified. The term uncontrolled transaction has been defined in rule 10A(b) to mean : `a transaction between enterprises other than associated enterprises..’. So the price in an uncontrolled transaction

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

Transfer Pricing orders are tabulated below:\nAsst year Date of TP order/dat TP adjustment Remarks\nReference to TPO e (Rs. in cores)\n2011-12 01.10.2013 Order u/s. No\n92CA(3)/ adjustment\n21.01.20\n15\nTPO concluded that the Import of\nEquipment from\nMIPP is at arm's\nlength price\n2012-13 20.11.2014 Order No\nu/s. adjustment\n92CA(3)/\n08.09.20\n15\nTPO

AMBATTUR CLOTHING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 92C r/w rule 10B.\nThe decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative\nalso support this view. It is also relevant to observe, in assessee's own\ncase in assessment year 2012–13, the Transfer Pricing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. ORIENT GREEN POWER COMPANY LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA was invalid and bad in law. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT has contended that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits. She further contended that the ld. CIT(A) is not correct in applying an amendment retrospectively for this AY 2014-15 when

SAINT-GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NCC 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

transfer pricing adjustment would be non-est. Consequently, the assessee would cease to be an eligible assessee as defined u/s 144C(15)(b) of the Act and therefore, the machinery provisions of Section 144C of the Act would not get triggered in the assessee’s case. In such a scenario, the assessment in the case of the assessee ought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CHENNAI vs. SAINT - GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

transfer pricing adjustment would be non-est. Consequently, the assessee would cease to be an eligible assessee as defined u/s 144C(15)(b) of the Act and therefore, the machinery provisions of Section 144C of the Act would not get triggered in the assessee’s case. In such a scenario, the assessment in the case of the assessee ought

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

13 order under the said section]. 36[ 37[Explanation 1.]-For the removal of doubts 38, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) an order passed 39[on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer 40[or the Transfer Pricing

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

Transfer pricing documentation\nwithout providing any specific reasons for rejecting the same and without appreciating\nthe fact that they are functionally comparable\n5. TPO's comparable companies to be rejected\n5.1 The TPO has erred in conducting a fresh benchmarking study and selecting fresh\ncomparable companies (Elecon EPC Projects Ltd. [Merged], Jost'S Engineering Co.\nLtd., McNally Bharat Engg

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

transfer of electricity by the assessee's windmill unit\neither to TANGEDCO or any other person and the entire electricity generated by the\nwindmill undertaking is captively consumed by the textile undertaking.\n4. The TPO on the basis of section 80-IA(8) held that the average selling price\nby an assessee to TANGEDCO should be based on the tariff

SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.71/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.88/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Dcit Private Limited Corporate Circle-2(1) (Formerly Known As Gamesa Renewable Chennai. बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Before That Known As Gamesa Wind Vs. Turbine Pvt.Ltd.) 334, Futura Tech Park, 8Th Floor, Block B Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg-6027-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld.Ar !थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sasi Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Have Identical Facts & Issues. The Appeal For Ay 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 30-10-2017 Passed By Ld.

section 115JB(2) of the Act, stating that the same pertains to expenditure attributable to earning exempt income. Issue No. 6: Transfer Pricing Adjustment at entity level made without considering the parity basis: 8.Without prejudice to ground No. 2 to 5, the Dispute Resolution Panel having confirmed the adjustment on account of Royalty and Management Service Fee, the Learned Transfer

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

section, therefore, brings out the distinction between a price paid for a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and the rent to be paid periodically to the lessor. When the interest of the lessor is parted with for a price, the price paid is premium or salami. But the periodical payments made for the continuous enjoyment