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 ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014) - 36 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 Pricing Officer (“TPO”) has made an adjustment of Rs 50,79,18,950 at the rate of 3.5 percent, being guarantee commission on the outstanding guarantees of Rs 12,91,64,90,000 extended by the assessee to its overseas

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 ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014) - 36 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 Pricing Officer (“TPO”) has made an adjustment of Rs 50,79,18,950 at the rate of 3.5 percent, being guarantee commission on the outstanding guarantees of Rs 12,91,64,90,000 extended by the assessee to its overseas

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 69 of the 1961 Act has no applicability in the instant case. 3.4 The said Shri. S.D.Settu during the course of survey conducted u/s 133A of the 1961 Act on 22.09.2015 , in his statement recorded during survey operations submitted as under: "Q.No.19: Do you know Shri Anthiah Pancras and what is the business relationship between you? Reply

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 69 of the 1961 Act has no applicability in the instant case. 3.4 The said Shri. S.D.Settu during the course of survey conducted u/s 133A of the 1961 Act on 22.09.2015 , in his statement recorded during survey operations submitted as under: "Q.No.19: Do you know Shri Anthiah Pancras and what is the business relationship between you? Reply

WATANMAL (INDIA) PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T(Tp).A. No. 4/Chny/2018 & I.T.A. No. 2407/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 & 2008-09 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Watanmal (India) Pvt. Ltd., Old No. 12, New No. 14, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Sripuram Second Street, Royapettah, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacw6624B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2006- 07 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, Bengaluru Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 254 R.W.S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 27.12.2017. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S.

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 14.03.2013. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2013 was issued to the assessee and the case was reopened under section 147 of the Act. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

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

price whichever is lower. The appellant\ncontended that the stand of the AO is not correct also the statement recorded\nduring the survey has no evidentiary value. The appellant also submitted that\nthis component of stock difference does not represent the value of any\nexcess quantity of stock found during the course of survey in relation to the\nstock register

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

price. On perusal of the submissions, we note\nthat the LU1 was manufacturing various shoe models and was operating at\nalmost full capacity (95%). The LU2 was set-up as a new unit after making an\napplication before the Development Commissioner, MEPZ as per Rule 17 of\nSEZ Rules, 2006 for a second facility which was estimated to produce

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

price. On perusal of the submissions, we note\nthat the LU1 was manufacturing various shoe models and was operating at\nalmost full capacity (95%). The LU2 was set-up as a new unit after making an\napplication before the Development Commissioner, MEPZ as per Rule 17 of\nSEZ Rules, 2006 for a second facility which was estimated to produce

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

price whichever is lower. The appellant\ncontended that the stand of the AO is not correct also the statement recorded\nduring the survey has no evidentiary value. The appellant also submitted that\nthis component of stock difference does not represent the value of any\nexcess quantity of stock found during the course of survey in relation to the\nstock register

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Appellant between 12 February 2019 to 15 February 2019 and various documents, including explanation / clarification relating to buy-back transaction, were sought and collated from the Appellant. • Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26 December 2019 by the learned Assessing Officer (‘learned

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Appellant between 12 February 2019 to 15 February 2019 and various documents, including explanation / clarification relating to buy-back transaction, were sought and collated from the Appellant. • Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26 December 2019 by the learned Assessing Officer (‘learned

PAULPANDIAN UTHAMARAJ WINSTON,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including

PAULPANDIAN UTHAMARAJ WINSTON,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including

PERINBA RAJA RAMESH,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including

PERINBA RAJA RAMESH,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including

PAULPANDIAN UTHAMARAJ WINSTON,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including

PERINBA RAJA RAMESH,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including

PERINBA RAJA RAMESH,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including