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)

151 taxmann.com 434 (SC)/ (2023) 454 ITR 582 (SC) (01.05.2023), in which the Honourable Supreme Court held as under: "The jurisdiction has been changed after the returns were filed. However, the records also reveals that the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Section

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

151 ITD 463(Mum.) it was held that when the TPO did not accept TP analysis made by assessee without giving any reasons and made TP adjustment without applying any prescribed method, such TP adjustment is not sustainable either in law or on facts. 6.1 Similar view was taken in the case of Merck Ltd. Vs. DCIT

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

151 ITD 463(Mum.) it was held that when the TPO did not accept TP analysis made by assessee without giving any reasons and made TP adjustment without applying any prescribed method, such TP adjustment is not sustainable either in law or on facts. 6.1 Similar view was taken in the case of Merck Ltd. Vs. DCIT

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

transfer pricing adjustment for fresh adjudication. Simultaneously, the assessee also challenged the order of Tribunal i.e., original order passed in ITA No.322/Mds/2016 dated 30.06.2016 and also challenged the Tribunal order passed in M.P. No.218/Mds/2016 dated 04.04.2017 before Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the Hon’ble High Court in Tax Case Appeal Nos.480 and 473 of 2017 vide order

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 Prabhu Spining Mills Private 121, Adarns Plaza, Vs. Limited, 60, Feet Road, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 602. Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

2,13,89,222 06 3. Division V/2006- 27.07.2006 44,66,547 2.90 1,29,52,986 07 4. Division 20.04.2010 40,93,529 3.39 1,38,77,063 VII/2009-10 5. Division 18.08.2011 1,11,31,745 3.39 3,77,36,616 VIII/2011-12 Total 10,69,94,336 5. The TPO thus determined the Arm’s Length Price

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 121, Adarns Plaza, 60, Feet Road, Tiruppur - 641 602. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Prabhu Spining Mills Private Limited, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025 Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : आदेश /Order These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 (In Short “Id.Cit(A)”) Dated 04.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Taken As The Lead Appeal For Adjudication Of The Issues Involved. The Only Issue Which Has Been Raised In Appeal By The Revenue Is With Regard To Determination Of Quantum Of Deduction U/S.80-Ia Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act"). :-2-:

2,13,89,222 06 3. Division V/2006- 27.07.2006 44,66,547 2.90 1,29,52,986 07 4. Division 20.04.2010 40,93,529 3.39 1,38,77,063 VII/2009-10 5. Division 18.08.2011 1,11,31,745 3.39 3,77,36,616 VIII/2011-12 Total 10,69,94,336 5. The TPO thus determined the Arm's Length Price

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this case, the concern in which assessee is a proprietor is engaged in the business of buying and selling goods and has continuous transactions with the assessee company in the normal course of business. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the case law relied upon by the ld.DR is distinguishable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPUR vs. SRI SHANMUGAVEL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

2 :: 3. The brief facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of yarn and also engaged in the business of generation & distribution of power through wind electric generators and filed its ITR on 30.10.2017 admitting total income at ₹ NIL. Later, the ITR was selected for scrutiny and matter was referred

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) with the approval of the Competent Authority. The TPO vide order u/s 92 CA (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20/09/2018 has not drawn any adverse inference in respect of the international transactions held by the assessee during the FY-2014-15. The scrutiny assessment proceedings were completed accepting the return of Income

FOSTER WHEELER FRANCE S.A.,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.774/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.641/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Foster Wheeler France S.A., The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, V. International Taxation -1, Chennai 6Th & 7Th Floor, “A” Block, Tidel Park, Chennai - 600 034. No.4, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani, Chennai - 600 113. Pan : Aabcf 3849 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer found that there was no requirement for any adjustment with regard to above said transaction. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order by disallowing the payment made to Foster Wheeler USA Corporation to the extent of `3,34,99,151/- and `14,94,99,978/- under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income

FOSTER WHEELER FRANCE S.A.,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.774/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.641/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Foster Wheeler France S.A., The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, V. International Taxation -1, Chennai 6Th & 7Th Floor, “A” Block, Tidel Park, Chennai - 600 034. No.4, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani, Chennai - 600 113. Pan : Aabcf 3849 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer found that there was no requirement for any adjustment with regard to above said transaction. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order by disallowing the payment made to Foster Wheeler USA Corporation to the extent of `3,34,99,151/- and `14,94,99,978/- under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income

FAIVELEY TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner, ‘(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner, ‘(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made