ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

13,396/-.\n5.1\nThe Ld. CIT (A) erred in observing that the four wind mill\nundertakings of the assessee (R-4O, K-85, K-50 &K-51 and K-243) have duly\ncomplied with the condition laid down in section 801A(3)(ii) at the time\nof their formation by the previous owners and the transfer of the such\nundertakings

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ppeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

3). Hence the arms length price has been calculated as per culated as per the provision of sub-sections (1) and (2) of 92C and determined as Rs. sections (1) and (2) of 92C and determined as Rs. sections (1) and (2) of 92C and determined as Rs. 9,72,301 and Rs. 78,70,058 towards reimbursement of excess

K.G. DENIM LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, TP-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1718/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 K G Denim Limited, Dcit, 1, Thenthirumalai, V. Tp-2(1), Jadayampalayam B.O., Chennai. Dhoddabavi, Coimbatore – 641 302. [Pan: Aaack-7940-C] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

3) of the Act dated 19.01.2023 had accepted the submissions of the assessee in this regard as well as the directions issued by the DRP- 2, Bangalore for the A.Y. 2017-18 in dropping the proposed adjustment of determination of ALP on such SDT. Subsequently, the CIT(TP), Chennai had invoked the revisionary powers in terms of Section

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').\n3 Rejection of Transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant\n3.1 The TPO erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis performed by the Appellant\nand incorrectly undertook a fresh benchmarking analysis.\n3.2. The TPO has erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis prepared by the\nAppellant without appreciating the fact that a detailed

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 153 expires’. Excluding 31.12.2019, the period of 60 days would expire on 01.11.2019 and the transfer pricing orders thus ought to have been passed on 31.10.2019 or any date prior thereto. Incidentally, the Board, in the Central Action Plan also indicates the date by which the Transfer Pricing orders are to be passed as 31.10.2019. The impugned orders

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, ERODE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Transfer Pricing Officer\nfor determining the Arm's Length Price. The TPO (Deputy\nCommissioner of Income-tax, TPO-2(1), Chennai) has passed order\nu/s 92(A)(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 suggesting downward\nadjustment of Rs.6,73,54,391/- on account of purchases from\nAssociated Enterprises. Sufficient opportunity was given to the\nassessee for filing the submissions

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

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

3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').\n3 Rejection of Transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant\n3.1 The TPO erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis performed by the Appellant\nand incorrectly undertook a fresh benchmarking analysis.\n3.2. The TPO has erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis prepared by the\nAppellant without appreciating the fact that a detailed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer\nfor determining the Arm's Length Price. The TPO (Deputy\nCommissioner of Income-tax, TPO-2(1), Chennai) has passed order\nu/s 92(A)(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 suggesting downward\nadjustment of Rs.6,73,54,391/- on account of purchases from\nAssociated Enterprises. Sufficient opportunity was given to the\nassessee for filing the submissions

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').\n3 Rejection of Transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant\n3.1 The TPO erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis performed by the Appellant\nand incorrectly undertook a fresh benchmarking analysis.\n3.2. The TPO has erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis prepared by the\nAppellant without appreciating the fact that a detailed

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

section 144C(13) of the Act, i.e. within one month from the end of the month of receipt of the directions of the DRP. It is the case of assessee that the directions of the DRP was dated 21.09.2024 and hence, the limitation for passing the final assessment order starts running from the end of the month

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company, the return of income filed was selected for scrutiny and the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) by the Assessing Officer (AO) in terms of section 92CA(1) of the Act. The TPO in accordance with section 80-IA(8) was required

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)

section 144C(13) of the Act. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of providing audio, video, web conference to its customers. It filed its return of income (RoI) for AY 2013-14 on 31.03.2014 admitting total income of Rs.37,23,48,860/-. Later, the RoI was selected for scrutiny. The AO noted that

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

3)r.w.s.144B dated 11.06.2021 in accordance with the value determined by TPO determined the ALP of the inter unit transfer of electricity to be Rs.10,69,94,336/- which in effect lead to the section 80-IA claim of the assessee being reduced by Rs.7,71,64,134/- (Rs.18,41,58,470 less Rs.10,69,94,336). 7. Aggrieved

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

3. The learned counsel for the assessee has further contended that AO has made a reference under section 92CA, having observed that the assessee has entered into specified domestic transaction as this case is covered under section 928A of the IT Act but later on there was amendment in section 92BA by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 whereby clause

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

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