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

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

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

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\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

2) & 142(1) were issued asking\nthe assessee to furnish further details in respect of deduction claimed\nu/s.80-IA with supporting documents. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the AO being not satisfied with the reply or explanation\nfurnished by the assessee disallowed the entire claim of the assessee\nmade certain additions.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

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\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

2) & 142(1) were issued asking\nthe assessee to furnish further details in respect of deduction claimed\nu/s.80-IA with supporting documents. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the AO being not satisfied with the reply or explanation\nfurnished by the assessee disallowed the entire claim of the assessee\nmade certain additions.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

142(1) dated 11.12.2018 almost 2 months back. Therefore, the assessee's contention that adequate time/opportunity was not provided is factually incorrect.\n10. For the detailed reasons discussed in paras 1 to 9 above, the share premium amount of Rs.547,40,14,560/- received from M/s.Mudajaya Corporation Berhad against the issue of 2,28,08,394 shares and Rs.67

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

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

KARADI PATH EDUCATION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price or in the alternative provided a valuation under DCF method to\ncounter the contentions of your appellant. The DCF method postulates that the\nvalue of an asset is the sum of the cash flows expected to be generated by the\nasset during the life of the asset discounted to present value by the cost of\ncapital. This is done

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

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

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

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 2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMASUBBU MINNALKODI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

price of Rs.1,450/-. He further stated\nthat it was the regular practice of the assessee to issue bills for a lower value.\nIn her sworn statement recorded during the survey, the assessee admitted the\ntotal turnover for the relevant assessment year, as on the date of survey, at\nRs.6,64,76,379/-, and further agreed to offer 8% thereof

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

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