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

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

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

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 (TPO) for determination of ALP of these domestic transactions as per Section 92BA(i) of the Act. The impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act on 26/12/2019 after following the order of the TPO u/s 92CA(3) of the Act and income of the 7 assessee was determined at Rs.7

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of guarantee given for AE to at 0.5% of the amount guaranteed. 2. The next issue is regarding disallowance under Section 14A. For this Assessment Year, the amended provisions of Rule 8D, with effect from 2nd June 2016 will be applicable and the disallowance should be restricted to 1% of the average investment which

MITSUBA SICAL INDIA PVT. LIMITED,GUMMIDIPOONDI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.400/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. Mitsuba Sical India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Previously Mitsuba Sical (India Corporate Circle 4(1) Ltd) Chennai. No.8,Sipcot Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi 601 201. [Pan Aaccm 4446M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

135 to the arm's length price of the Appellant's international transactions. 3.The Learned TPO/AO and Hon'ble DRP have erred, in law and in facts by rejecting the detailed transfer pricing documentation prepared by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and proceeded to undertake a fresh search without providing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

price of a product, apart from its market price, as prescribed in Section 80-IA(8) of the Act. According to us, the sale price cannot further be segregated by imputing price attributable to marketing and R&D efforts for the simple reason that there is no such provision contained in law. We agree with the Ld. AR that

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) LTU - II, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

price of a product, apart from its market price, as prescribed in Section 80-IA(8) of the Act. According to us, the sale price cannot further be segregated by imputing price attributable to marketing and R&D efforts for the simple reason that there is no such provision contained in law. We agree with the Ld. AR that

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1st Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [PAN: AACCC-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. Soumen Adak, CA & Shri. Ashish Poddar, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1st Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [PAN: AACCC-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. Soumen Adak, CA & Shri. Ashish Poddar, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement

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

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

135% 35. Further, the ld.AR stated that there is not even a reduction in anyone parameter. At any rate, section 10AA(4) of the Act is an anti-avoidance provision which should be strictly construed and when the taxable profits have :-17-: IT(TP)A.No.:20 /Chny/2021 & ITA Nos. 798, 799 & 800/Chny/2022 significantly increased along with every other parameter, there

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price of shares allotted by the successor company. 127. We find support from the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, wherein it has been consistently held that once the conditions prescribed u/s.47(xiv) of the Act are duly satisfied, the assessee is entitled to the exemption provided therein, and no addition can be made merely on account

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

135/-. On appeal, though the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO’s contention that UPS devices were not in nature of ‘power saving devices’ and therefore not eligible for depreciation at the rate of 80%, but at the same time the Ld. CIT(A) held that since UPS devices are a part of computer system, he directed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

Transfer Pricing Officer, for the purpose of determining the Arm's Length Price with reference to the 'international transaction carried out by the assessee with its associated enterprises during the F.Y. 2006-07 as per the provisions of sec 92C of the Act. In response to the same, the TPO passed order vide C.R.No.A-103/TPO-I/A.Y.2007-08 dated 16.09.2010 stating