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

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

SARAVANAN ARUMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty.] (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

transfer of the commodity. In other words, the transaction must be settled on a net-net basis, whereby the difference between the price prevailing on the settlement date and the contracted price is paid/ received by the parties to the contract. Given that the contracts are settled by actual delivery and not on a net-to-net basis, the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

transfer of the commodity. In other words, the transaction must be settled on a net-net basis, whereby the difference between the price prevailing on the settlement date and the contracted price is paid/ received by the parties to the contract. Given that the contracts are settled by actual delivery and not on a net-to-net basis, the same

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.

5) dated 21-09-2017. Since the assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE), the same were referred to Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-2, Chennai (TPO) and an order was passed by Ld. TPO u/s 92CA(3) on 31-10-2016. The Ld. TPO proposed certain Transfer Pricing Adjustments which were incorporated in draft assessment order

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

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 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

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

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

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

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's order u/s 92CA(3). The ld. AR argued that the 5% of the price variation as mentioned in the CBDT’s circular No.12/2001 dated 23.08.2001, is to be applied for the wholesome transactions with the Associated Enterprise (AE) and not on each transaction with the AE. The Id.AR has further contended that the TPO ought

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's order u/s 92CA(3). The ld. AR argued that the 5% of the price variation as mentioned in the CBDT’s circular No.12/2001 dated 23.08.2001, is to be applied for the wholesome transactions with the Associated Enterprise (AE) and not on each transaction with the AE. The Id.AR has further contended that the TPO ought

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, 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's order u/s 92CA(3). The ld. AR argued that the 5% of the price variation as mentioned in the CBDT’s circular No.12/2001 dated 23.08.2001, is to be applied for the wholesome transactions with the Associated Enterprise (AE) and not on each transaction with the AE. The Id.AR has further contended that the TPO ought