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

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

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

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

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

CHENNIAPPAN RAMADURAI,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1337/Chny/2023 & Ita Nos.1340/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & Ay-2019-20 Shri Chenniappan Ramadurai, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu-638001. [Pan: Aelpr2706M] & Ita Nos.1343/Chny/2023 For Ay 2019-20 Smt. Ramadurai Amutha, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-638001. Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. [Pan: Afvpa4816L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

133A. It is also an undisputed fact of the case that the assesse had, by way of his sworn statement admitted concealment of income and had offered the same for taxation. Before procedding further it is considered necessary to examine the provisions of section 270A reproduced hereunder: 270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income.—(1) The Assessing Officer

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of their parent company, RIL, in India in the month of December, 2017. For the years under appeal, the assessee was of the view that it does not have any PE in India and had filed return of income under section 139 of the Act offering to tax the ITA Nos.1215

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of their parent company, RIL, in India in the month of December, 2017. For the years under appeal, the assessee was of the view that it does not have any PE in India and had filed return of income under section 139 of the Act offering to tax the ITA Nos.1215

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of their parent company, RIL, in India in the month of December, 2017. For the years under appeal, the assessee was of the view that it does not have any PE in India and had filed return of income under section 139 of the Act offering to tax the ITA Nos.1215

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. V A TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.147/Chny/2018, Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1182/Chny/2018, Assessment Years: 2012-13

transfer pricing adjustments u/s 92CA(3). From the perusal of Ld. AO’s order we find that the Ld. TPO had recommended an adjustment of 1% of the value of services provided, in this case being value of the corporate guaranty to its overseas AEs. As per the factual matrix the assesse had acquired shares of VA Tech Page

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI vs. VA TECH WABAG PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.147/Chny/2018, Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1182/Chny/2018, Assessment Years: 2012-13

transfer pricing adjustments u/s 92CA(3). From the perusal of Ld. AO’s order we find that the Ld. TPO had recommended an adjustment of 1% of the value of services provided, in this case being value of the corporate guaranty to its overseas AEs. As per the factual matrix the assesse had acquired shares of VA Tech Page