ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE vs. MAHENDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MANAKKAL

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 125 & 126/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co Nos.: 18 & 19/Chny/2019 (In Ita Nos.125 & 126/Chny/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021

3) of the Act. Unless, the AO has brought on record, evidences to support his finding, merely for the reason the trust was unregistered and the trustees may utilized the surplus for their benefit is not a ground for denying exemption, more particularly when such advance is given to another charitable trust for imparting education. Thus, in our view advance

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 dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

13,396/-. 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in observing that the four wind mill undertakings of the assessee (R-4O, K-85, K-50 &K-51 and K-243) have duly complied with the condition laid down in section 80IA(3)(ii) at the time of their formation by the previous owners and the transfer of the such undertakings

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

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

price whether or not received during the year of deemed transfer. In such an eventuality, hardship may be caused to the owner who would have paid full tax. No doubt, such a situation could be avoided if the contention of the applicant is accepted. On deep consideration, however, we find that the construction of the relevant provision should

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

13,396/-. 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in observing that the four wind mill undertakings of the assessee (R-4O, K-85, K-50 &K-51 and K-243) have duly complied with the condition laid down in section 801A(3)(ii) at the time of their formation by the previous owners and the transfer of the such undertakings

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

RENAULT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Oil the basis of the incorrect conclusion that the transaction fell within the meaning of international transaction under section 92 B of the Act. The conclusion of the Ld. TPO / Assessing Officer wss based on suspicions, conjectures and assumptions; not based Oil any evidence and is contrary to the facts of the case. Objection 3

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 92 regarding Transfer Pricing Regulations are not applicable to this company; and (ii) With reference to the Annexure to the TPO's order and considering the only comparable case no adjustment for Arm's Length Price is called for. 3.3 Upon the above submissions of the assessee, the same were notified to the Assessing Officer for his comments. After

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 92 regarding Transfer Pricing Regulations are not applicable to this company; and (ii) With reference to the Annexure to the TPO's order and considering the only comparable case no adjustment for Arm's Length Price is called for. 3.3 Upon the above submissions of the assessee, the same were notified to the Assessing Officer for his comments. After

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD., CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 92 regarding Transfer Pricing Regulations are not applicable to this company; and (ii) With reference to the Annexure to the TPO's order and considering the only comparable case no adjustment for Arm's Length Price is called for. 3.3 Upon the above submissions of the assessee, the same were notified to the Assessing Officer for his comments. After

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 92 regarding Transfer Pricing Regulations are not applicable to this company; and (ii) With reference to the Annexure to the TPO's order and considering the only comparable case no adjustment for Arm's Length Price is called for. 3.3 Upon the above submissions of the assessee, the same were notified to the Assessing Officer for his comments. After

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ` 1,43,58,919/- under Section 271G

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ` 1,43,58,919/- under Section 271G