ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

Transfer Pricing Orders for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 are 01.02.2017 and 20.12.2018 respectively, well after the search.\n8.1 In such cases, it is now settled law by authoritative pronouncements of the hon'ble Supreme Court that any assessments under Sections 153A/153C in respect of unabated assessments must be based on incriminating materials obtained during search proceeding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

transfer pricing\nreport.\nTwo crucial facts must be noted:\n1. The assessment for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15\nwere originally concluded under Section 143(3) on\n31.3.2017 and 21.12.2016 respectively. As such the\nassessments under Section 153C are unabated assessments.\n2. The date of the search is 23.11.2015. The dates of the\nTransfer Pricing Orders for Assessment Years

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer is\nreceived by him.]\n(6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) 27[, (1A)] and (2) shall apply to the following\nclasses of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the\nprovisions of 28[sub-sections (3), (5) and (5A)], be completed-\n(i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee

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 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

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 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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

142 taxmann.com 274 (Bangalore - Trib.)\n15.1 Further, the Hyderabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of S&P Capital\nIQ (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of\nI & B Seeds (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that by way of amendment through Finance\nAct, 2021 clause (b) of Section

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

142(1) were issued, which were complied with by the assessee. At the onset, the AO noted that the assessee didn’t file the Form 10CCB within the due date of filing of return of income and ITA No.870/Chny/2017 for AY 2012-13 & ITA Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd. :: 3 :: therefore

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

142 taxmann.com 274 (Bangalore - Trib.)\n15.1\nFurther, the Hyderabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of S&P Capital\nIQ (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of\nI & B Seeds (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that by way of amendment through Finance\nAct, 2021 clause (b) of 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

142(1) of the Act were issued by DCIT, Company Cirlce-12(5), Chennai. A draft assessment order was passed by DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai u/s.143(3) r.w.s 92CA(3) of the Act vide order dated 13.03.2015 after passing of transfer pricing adjustment order by the DCIT, Transfer Pricing Officer-3(2) (i/c), Chennai u/s.92CA

INTERNATIONAL FLAVOURS & FRAGRANCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

142(1) of the Act calling for various details and conducted a complete\ninquiry. After going through various submissions filed by the assessee from time to\ntime, the AO passed an order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 05.05.2022 with the\nfollowing additions:\nParticulars\nAmount in INR\nIncome as per section 143(1)\n1,22,06,84,110\nAdd: Transfer

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

142 taxmann.com 274 (Bangalore - Trib.)\n15.1 Further, the Hyderabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of S&P Capital\nIQ (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of\nI & B Seeds (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that by way of amendment through Finance\nAct, 2021 clause (b) of Section

YCH LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM, TAMILNADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -3(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ych Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech Sez Phase Ii, V. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacy-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment. Further, it was held that where the PLI of the assessee under TNMM is at arm’s length and it is not possible on the part of the department to identify a comparable, which is rendering similar services, the question of considering CUP method would not arise at all. Since the assessee has stated that

NETHERLANDS OPERATING COMPANY B.V.,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAXATION 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1198/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Netherlands Operating Company B.V. The Acit, Rmz Millenia (Phase-1), International Taxation -2(1), Business Park, 4Th Floor, Campus 1C, Chennai. 11, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. [Pan: Aabcl 0573 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

142 or (sub-section (2) of section 115WE or] sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier, 4.11 The appellant is aware that there is no notice u/s 143(2). However, it has participated in the assessment proceedings willingly and compliantly and Netherlands Operating Company B.V. :: 7 :: haven't raised any question

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

142(1) of the Act on 14.09.2021 and hence\nthe allegation of the PCIT that the matter was not examined by the AO is totally\nincorrect. Further, the Id. Counsel for the assessee argued that the PCIT cannot\ninvoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act merely if he believes that the\ninquiries made by the AO are inadequate

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

142(1) were issued, which were complied with\nby the assessee. At the onset, the AO noted that the assessee didn't file\nthe Form 10CCB within the due date of filing of return of income and\ntherefore he opined that the deduction claimed u/s 80-IAB ought to be\ndisallowed on this count alone. On merits, the AO noted

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

price is equal or higher, the said provision has no implication. It is noted from Rule 11UA(1) that, the valuation methodology set out therein is to be applied for the purposes of Section 56 of the Act, and more specifically Rule 11UA(1)(c) is relevant to the present case. The valuation method set out in Rule 11UA