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

transfer pricing issues and disallowance under Section 14A, with decisions made on each point based on the facts and relevant legal precedents. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the extent of exempt income.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 143(3)", "Section 92CA(3)", "Section 144C

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

144C prescribe mandatory time limits both pre and post the stage of passing of a transfer pricing order. Assessments involving transfer pricing issues are different and distinct from regular assessments and the intention of Legislature is to fast track such assessments. Bearing in mind the specialized nature of such assessments, a separate set of Officers attend to the framing

M/S. DORLING KINDERSLEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

3) of that section has not been made before such date; or (ii) Is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, The provisions of clause (a) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso, have effect as if for the words “two years”, the words “thirty-three months” had been substituted] In view of the above, ld.counsel

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

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

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3137/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 144C(5) of the Act (“impugned order”) inter-alia on the following grounds: In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: 1. The impugned order and directions of the Hon’ble DRP are based on incorrect appreciation of facts and wrong interpretation of law and therefore, are bad in law. 2. The Ld. AO has erred

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PUDUCHERRY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Pricing Officers tend to take a conservative view. The correction of such view takes very long time with the existing appellate structure. With a view to provide speedy disposal, it is proposed to amend the Income-tax Act so as to create an alternative dispute resolution mechanism within the Income-tax Department and accordingly, section 144C has been proposed

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.319/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Conferencecall – The Dy. Commissioner- Services India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No.135, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle-1(2), Old Airport Road, Chennai. Bangalore-560 017. [Pan: Aaccc 6574 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 144C(13) of the Act. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of providing audio, video, web conference to its customers. It filed its return of income (RoI) for AY 2013-14 on 31.03.2014 admitting total income of Rs.37,23,48,860/-. Later, the RoI was selected for scrutiny. The AO noted that

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

3 I.T.A. No.586/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.1169/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.610/Mds/15 C.O. No.55/Mds/14 distribution of Parryware and Roca sanitary ware and taps. The assessee, in fact, imported finished goods from its associate enterprise for resale in India. According to the Ld. counsel, to determine the Arm's Length Price of imported finished goods, the assessee adopted Resale Price Method as most appropriate method

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PARRYWARE ROCA PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

3 I.T.A. No.586/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.1169/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.610/Mds/15 C.O. No.55/Mds/14 distribution of Parryware and Roca sanitary ware and taps. The assessee, in fact, imported finished goods from its associate enterprise for resale in India. According to the Ld. counsel, to determine the Arm's Length Price of imported finished goods, the assessee adopted Resale Price Method as most appropriate method

KELLER GROUND ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Transfer Pricing Officer and the TPO has passed order u/s.92CA of the Act dated 14.01.2015vide C.R. No.Y-603/TPO 3(2)/A.Y.2011-12, in which the TPO has recommended downward adjustment of Rs.7,40,95,333/- incurred to Management Support Services received from its Associated Enterprises YCH, Singapore. Thereafter the DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai passed draft assessment order u/s.143(3

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

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, ERODE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) report regarding transactions with Associated Enterprises. The assessee's appeals reached the ITAT, which restored the matter to the AO for examining the allowability of expenditure under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, finding the TPO reference invalid.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO was invalid and consequential adjustments could

PANASONIC CORPORATION,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

144C(1) of the order instead of passing an order in conformity with the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer as provided under Section 92CA(4) of the Act. 21. Now, coming to merit of the appeal, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee only on the ground that the assessee received assessee fee for technical service