RENAULT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

15. that M/s. RNAIPL was selling more Nissan cars than Renault Cars. Reliance was placed on the profit and loss account of M/s. RNAIPL placed at paper book page 595. Further, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, M/s. RNAIPL was a separate entity which was itself subjected to a transfer pricing study and Arms Length Pricing adjustment. According

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 92B of the Act. He vehemently stressed on the incorrect methodology followed by the TPO to vehemently stressed on the incorrect methodology followed by the TPO to vehemently stressed on the incorrect methodology followed by the TPO to make the transfer pricing adjustment i.e. the bright line test, which had make the transfer pricing adjustment i.e. the bright line

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. FLAKT (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1032/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

15,33,183/- was made. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that when the matter was referred to the Dispute Resolution Panel, the Dispute Resolution Panel found that though theoretically Transaction Net Margin Method was the most appropriate method, but, practically adoption of CUP method would be most appropriate. According to the Ld. D.R., when the DRP found that

M/S INNOVTIVE MICROFINANCE FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTIONS),CHENNAI CIRCLE, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

transfers, counselling, etc. 2.2. For the purposes of this report, the Sub-Committee has confined itself to only one aspect of Microfinance, namely, the provision of credit to low income groups. 2.3 The provision of credit to the Microfinance sector is based on the following postulates: a) It addresses the concerns of poverty alleviation by encouraging the poor to work

K.G. DENIM LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, TP-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1718/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 K G Denim Limited, Dcit, 1, Thenthirumalai, V. Tp-2(1), Jadayampalayam B.O., Chennai. Dhoddabavi, Coimbatore – 641 302. [Pan: Aaack-7940-C] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

transferred power and steam lo its AE, the income computation statement is evident to show that the company has not claimed any deduction under section 80IA for, the reason that the GTI is negative and not eligible to claim deduction as per the provisions of section 8OA of the Act.” 14. Thus, we note that the AO had asked

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

15% on the revenue in the form of management service fee. The assessee further claimed before the CIT(Appeals) that the TPO arbitrarily estimated the fee at `8.70 Crores instead of `4.35 Crores. The assessee appears to have adopted cost plus method for computing arm's length price in respect of management consultancy charges. From the tabular ITA No.1020

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

15% on the revenue in the form of management service fee. The assessee further claimed before the CIT(Appeals) that the TPO arbitrarily estimated the fee at `8.70 Crores instead of `4.35 Crores. The assessee appears to have adopted cost plus method for computing arm's length price in respect of management consultancy charges. From the tabular ITA No.1020

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

15% on the revenue in the form of management service fee. The assessee further claimed before the CIT(Appeals) that the TPO arbitrarily estimated the fee at `8.70 Crores instead of `4.35 Crores. The assessee appears to have adopted cost plus method for computing arm's length price in respect of management consultancy charges. From the tabular ITA No.1020

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

15% on the revenue in the form of management service fee. The assessee further claimed before the CIT(Appeals) that the TPO arbitrarily estimated the fee at `8.70 Crores instead of `4.35 Crores. The assessee appears to have adopted cost plus method for computing arm's length price in respect of management consultancy charges. From the tabular ITA No.1020

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

15% on the revenue in the form of management service fee. The assessee further claimed before the CIT(Appeals) that the TPO arbitrarily estimated the fee at `8.70 Crores instead of `4.35 Crores. The assessee appears to have adopted cost plus method for computing arm's length price in respect of management consultancy charges. From the tabular ITA No.1020

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

15% on the revenue in the form of management service fee. The assessee further claimed before the CIT(Appeals) that the TPO arbitrarily estimated the fee at `8.70 Crores instead of `4.35 Crores. The assessee appears to have adopted cost plus method for computing arm's length price in respect of management consultancy charges. From the tabular ITA No.1020

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

Transfer Pricing Officer or Dispute Resolution Panel, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, the orders of the Assessing Officer are set aside and the Assessing Officer shall refer the matter again to the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel shall examine the agreement between the parties and other transactions

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

Transfer Pricing Officer or Dispute Resolution Panel, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, the orders of the Assessing Officer are set aside and the Assessing Officer shall refer the matter again to the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel shall examine the agreement between the parties and other transactions

DCIT, PONDICHERRY vs. TWEEZERMAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD., PONDICHERRY

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

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

Section 10B of the Act at `8,30,44,003/- as against the claim of the assessee at `15,94,74,284/- and accordingly he disallowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of `7,64,30,281/-. The question arises for consideration is – when the assessee declared the profit at `15,94,74,284/- and the Transfer Pricing

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

15, 2017 under 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

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

section 14A of the Act has to be applied, it cannot exceed the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment OFCD Interest: 15

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

section 14A of the Act has to be applied, it cannot exceed the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment OFCD Interest: 15

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

section 14A of the Act has to be applied, it cannot exceed the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment OFCD Interest: 15

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

section 14A of the Act has to be applied, it cannot exceed the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment OFCD Interest: 15