ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Transfer Pricing Officer or Dispute Resolution Panel, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, the orders of the Assessing Officer are set aside and the Assessing Officer shall refer the matter again to the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel shall examine the agreement between the parties and other transactions

HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

transfer pricing provisions rather than making these provisions unworkable. That meaning had to be a dominant influence which leads to de facto control over the other enterprise rather than an influence simplictor. If we are to adopt literal meaning of influence, as has been adopted by the authorities below, all the transactions on negotiated prices will

SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.71/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.88/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Dcit Private Limited Corporate Circle-2(1) (Formerly Known As Gamesa Renewable Chennai. बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Before That Known As Gamesa Wind Vs. Turbine Pvt.Ltd.) 334, Futura Tech Park, 8Th Floor, Block B Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg-6027-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld.Ar !थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sasi Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Have Identical Facts & Issues. The Appeal For Ay 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 30-10-2017 Passed By Ld.

Transfer pricing adjustment at entity level 5.The DRP erred in confirming the action of TPO in making an entity level adjustment with respect to International Transactions amounting to Rs. 23,02,16,000/- Issue No 4: Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act: 6.For that the Learned Assessing Officer based on directions issued by the DRP erred

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 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 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

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

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

139 of the Act for furnishing the return of income, for each succeeding year.” 4.5 In light of the above Rule, as introduced by the IT (10th Amendment) Rules, 2016 applicable with effect from 01.07.2016, the position of law as prevailing in AY 2018-19 is that, furnishing of Form 3CL by DSIR is a pre-requisite to claim

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

139 of the Act for furnishing the return of income, for each succeeding year.” 4.5 In light of the above Rule, as introduced by the IT (10th Amendment) Rules, 2016 applicable with effect from 01.07.2016, the position of law as prevailing in AY 2018-19 is that, furnishing of Form 3CL by DSIR is a pre-requisite to claim

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Transfer Pricing Officer and the TPO has passed order u/s.92CA of the Act dated 14.01.2015vide C.R. No.Y-603/TPO 3(2)/A.Y.2011-12, in which the TPO has recommended downward adjustment of Rs.7,40,95,333/- incurred to Management Support Services received from its Associated Enterprises YCH, Singapore. Thereafter the DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai passed draft assessment order u/s.143

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 147 of the 1961 Act. Similar situation prevailed in ay: 2009-10 wherein the assessee filed its return of income only on 31.03.2015 which is much beyond the time prescribed even for filing of belated return of income u/s 139(4) of the 1961 Act and such a return cannot be claimed to be a valid return

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 147 of the 1961 Act. Similar situation prevailed in ay: 2009-10 wherein the assessee filed its return of income only on 31.03.2015 which is much beyond the time prescribed even for filing of belated return of income u/s 139(4) of the 1961 Act and such a return cannot be claimed to be a valid return

ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

139 is furnished, an order of assessment under section 143 or section\n144 may be made at any time before the expiry of [twelve] months from the end of the\nfinancial year in which such return was furnished.]\n12[(1B) Notwithstanding anything-in sub-section (1), where a return is furnished in\nconsequence of an order under clause

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. AATHMIKA HOLDINGS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

139(1) of the Act on 06.02.2022, declaring total income of Rs.22,32,201/-. The case of the assessee was selected for regular scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09.02.2022. In the course of scrutiny, the AO inter alia called for several details by issuing notice

VISTEON ASIA HOLDINGS INC.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 723/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

price admitted by the assessee in the return of income. The valuation of share at the initial stage was made on Net Asset Value method and Profit Earning Capacity Value method. The average value of shares was arrived at `20.50 per share as on 31.03.2007, which is proximate to the date of first sale, i.e. 27.03.2007. However, the assessee claims

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

transfer pricing adjustment made by the AO/TPO The learned TPO and the learned AO, under the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'): 2. Erred in law and on facts of the case in considering advertisement, marketing and promotion ('AMP') expenditure incurred by the Assessee wholly and exclusively for its domestic business operations within the realm

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