SUNTEC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm’s length price of international transaction undertaken by the assessee with its AE. The TPO passed an order u/s.92CA of the Act on 23.10.2023 wherein, he proposed downward adjustment of Rs.1,42,01,590/- being the arm’s length price of the salary paid to global sales personnel. The reasoning

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, 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 wherein downward adjustments were made to the price paid for the equipment imported by the AE. It is submitted that the Assessee had filed an appeal (IT(TP) A No. 44/Chny/2023) to this honʼble Tribunal against the appellate order for Assessment Year 2013-14 (arising from the assessment under Section 143

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1010/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Eaton Power Quality Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Pondicherry Circle, Puducherry 605 111, Pondicherry. Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 35/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Eaton Power Quality Private The Assessing Officer, Limited, V. National E-Assessment Centre, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Delhi. Puducherry 605 111, Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishal Kalra, Advocate : Shri. S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 153 expires’. Excluding 31.12.2019, the period of 60 days would expire on 01.11.2019 and the transfer pricing orders thus ought to have been passed on 31.10.2019 or any date prior thereto. Incidentally, the Board, in the Central Action Plan also indicates the date by which the Transfer Pricing orders are to be passed as 31.10.2019. The impugned orders

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

143(1)\n21 months\nDate\n31.12.2018\n2\nReference made to Valuation Officer under\nSection 142A\n28.12.2018\n3\nTimeline by which Valuation Officer should have\ncompleted assessment in terms of Letter dated\n28.12.2018\n28.01.2019\n4\nStatutory \"Time line by which Valuation Officer\nshould have completed assessment (Section\n142A(6)\n30.06.2019\n5\nPeriod excluded for purposes of computing\nlimitation under Section

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

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)

section 92C(3) of the Act proceeded to make adjustment to the inter-unit transfer of semi-finished products.. h. The Hon'ble DRP/learned AO/ TPO ought to have accepted the economic analysis performed in the TP report in support of arm's length price of Inter-unit transfer of Jewellery and watch units

PFIZER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1-LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the corporate additions made in the assessment order would not survive

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.641/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Limited Dcit (Formerly Known As Hospira Healthcare India Corporate Circle-5(2)-Ltu, बनाम/ Private Limited) Chennai. Vs. 237, Emerald Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabco-2190-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

transfer pricing (TP) adjustment. Pursuant to the same, Ld. AO framed an assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) on 28-02-2020. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR, at the outset, tabulated the sequence of assessment proceedings

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

SAINT-GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NCC 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Transfer Pricing Order dated 01.11.2019 and Final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Act dated 28.02.2020 is barred by limitation under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CHENNAI vs. SAINT - GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Transfer Pricing Order dated 01.11.2019 and Final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Act dated 28.02.2020 is barred by limitation under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. ORIENT GREEN POWER COMPANY LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of ALP of these domestic transactions as per Section 92BA(i) of the Act. The impugned assessment order passed u/s 143

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

section 143(1)\n1,22,06,84,110\nAdd: Transfer Pricing additions\n13,43,66,276\nAdd: Disallowance of deduction

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

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

143(3)", "Section 92CA(3)", "Section 144C", "Section 43(1)", "Section 43(6)", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 32(1)(ii)", "Section 92CA(3)", "Section 92C(3)" ], "issues": "1. Whether depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is allowable.\n2. Whether transfer pricing

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

price for the valuation of goodwill. Likewise, he further noted that the assessing authority has not examined the justification of the consideration for transfer of IPR and directed the Assessing Officer to re- examine the issue. 3.8 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 143

GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

price. He argued that there is no element of transfer so as to attract\nthe provision of section 2(47) of the Act and hence there cannot be any\nlevy of tax on capital gain under section 45 of the Act on the event of\nintroduction of a new partner. He has further submitted that even if the\namount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

transfer price of electricity generated by the assessee's windmill unit and consumed by its textile unit.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the market value of electricity supplied by the State Electricity Board (TANGEDCO) to industrial consumers should be considered for computing the Section 80-IA deduction, not the rate at which the assessee sold power to the State Electricity