DCIT , CORPORATE RANGE - 1 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

139(1) of the Act. The cases were selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that outsourcing charges paid by the assessee to non- resident service providers is in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ (FTS) as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act and thus

DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

139(1) of the Act. The cases were selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that outsourcing charges paid by the assessee to non- resident service providers is in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ (FTS) as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act and thus

DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

139(1) of the Act. The cases were selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that outsourcing charges paid by the assessee to non- resident service providers is in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ (FTS) as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act and thus

M/S ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CORPORATE RANGE - 1 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

139(1) of the Act. The cases were selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that outsourcing charges paid by the assessee to non- resident service providers is in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ (FTS) as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act and thus

M/S ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CORPORATE RANGE - 1 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

139(1) of the Act. The cases were selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that outsourcing charges paid by the assessee to non- resident service providers is in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ (FTS) as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act and thus

DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

139(1) of the Act. The cases were selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that outsourcing charges paid by the assessee to non- resident service providers is in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ (FTS) as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act and thus

JCIT(OSD),CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(10, CHENNAI vs. ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIALTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

139(1) of the Act. The cases were selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that outsourcing charges paid by the assessee to non- resident service providers is in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ (FTS) as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act and thus

ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI vs. SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

price minus discount paid by VAR to the applicant is in the nature of royalty? It depends on the question whether any rights that the applicant granted to the licensee/end-user include the right of using the copyright Alternatively, going by the language of IT Act, the question is whether any right in respect of copyright has been transferred

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

139 taxmann.com 897 (Delhi-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, “Non-compete fee paid by assessee would not be an intangible asset within ambit of section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai

DCIT LTU-1 , CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

139 taxmann.com 897 (Delhi-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, “Non-compete fee paid by assessee would not be an intangible asset within ambit of section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai

DCIT LTPU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD, CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

139 taxmann.com 897 (Delhi-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, “Non-compete fee paid by assessee would not be an intangible asset within ambit of section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

139 taxmann.com 897 (Delhi-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, “Non-compete fee paid by assessee would not be an intangible asset within ambit of section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

139 taxmann.com 897 (Delhi-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, “Non-compete fee paid by assessee would not be an intangible asset within ambit of section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai

DCIT LTU-1 , CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

139 taxmann.com 897 (Delhi-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, “Non-compete fee paid by assessee would not be an intangible asset within ambit of section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

139 taxmann.com 897 (Delhi-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, “Non-compete fee paid by assessee would not be an intangible asset within ambit of section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU 1 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

139 taxmann.com 897 (Delhi-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, “Non-compete fee paid by assessee would not be an intangible asset within ambit of section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai

DCIT LTU-1 , CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

139 taxmann.com 897 (Delhi-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, “Non-compete fee paid by assessee would not be an intangible asset within ambit of section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai

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 -:

9. Ground No.5 is against applying the provisions of section 92A(2)(i) of the Act for sale made to Apotex Corp and Apotex Signet treating as a deemed AE. 9.1 The Ld TPO/DRP has held that the Apotex group shall be treated as a deemed AE as per Section 92A(2)(i) of the Act and accordingly, benchmarked