ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

price (i.e., INR 275 per share) was wrongly assessed as income under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The learned AO failed to note that the valuation of INR 607 determined under the DCF method is not in accordance with the valuation methodology prescribed under the Act. • If one were to compute the FMV of the shares bought back

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

price (i.e., INR 275 per share) was wrongly assessed as income under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The learned AO failed to note that the valuation of INR 607 determined under the DCF method is not in accordance with the valuation methodology prescribed under the Act. • If one were to compute the FMV of the shares bought back

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose”. 5.4 The ld.CIT(A) erred in not observing that the assessee purchased the first unit K-40 in the FY 2011-12 and this unit was previously owned and used by M//s.AmitronicsPvt Ltd, Bangalore and this machine was originally installed

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company. [12] In order to successfully invoke the provisions of Section 144C, thus, two basic conditions are required to be fulfilled: - the assessee is an eligible assessee [i.e. (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to the income or loss in the returned

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

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

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

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

142(1) were issued, which were complied with\nby the assessee.\nAt 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

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.393/Chny/2018 & आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.89/Chny/2018 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Titan Company Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income No.3, Spicot Industrial Complex, Vs. Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. Ltu-2, [Pan: Aaact 5131A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2. The Hon'ble DRP/ learned Assessing Officer ('AO') / Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) erred in ignoring the transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). 3. The Hon'ble DRP / learned AO / TPO thereby erred in making an addition

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

142(1) of the Act in 'Limited Scrutiny' cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny. Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the 'Limited Scrutiny' issues. c. These cases shall be completed expeditiously in a limited number of hearings. d. During the course of assessment proceedings

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

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

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

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

transfer, by the purchaser. e. If, even one of the above four limbs is not satisfied or not substantiated, the claim of land being an agriculture land excluded within the meaning covered under section 2(14) of come Tax Act, is not admissible. 73. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

transfer, by the purchaser. e. If, even one of the above four limbs is not satisfied or not substantiated, the claim of land being an agriculture land excluded within the meaning covered under section 2(14) of come Tax Act, is not admissible. 73. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee