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

153(4) of the Act in case of the Appellant since transfer pricing reference was made additional 12 months Time limit for issuance of Transfer Pricing Order as per 31/10/2019 Section

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHY vs. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED, TRICHY

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

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 153(4) of the Act in the cases where the matter is referred to transfer pricing adjustment. It was contended

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 ()

153(4) of the Act in case of the Appellant since transfer pricing reference was made additional 12 months Time limit for issuance of Transfer Pricing Order as per Section

GANESAN KANNAN,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITI, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, THOOTHUKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

transfer pricing adjustments have been made under sub-section (3) of section 92CA of the Act, the Assessing Officer {AO) is required to forward a draft assessment order to the eligible assessee, if he proposed to make any variation in the :-12-: ITA. No:698/Chny/2024 income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. Such eligible

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Pricing Officer, as the case may be, if satisfied,\nmay allow an additional period of six months to give\neffect to the order:\nProvided further that where an order under section 250\nor section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section\n263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by\nway of submission of any document

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

Pricing Officer, as the case may be, if satisfied,\nmay allow an additional period of six months to give\neffect to the order:\nProvided further that where an order under section 250\nor section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section\n263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by\nway of submission of any document

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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

price or payment in kind or adjustment towards debt or for monetary\nconsideration. That the issue of ownership and possession nowhere\nform part of the provision and concept of transfer is alien to it.\n7.\nThe CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note of judgment in CIT vs\nDr.Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (1995 211 ITR 804 (Bom) wherein

ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

153. (1) No order of assessment 4 shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time\nafter the expiry of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment year in which the\nincome was first assessable:\n[Provided that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year\ncommencing

AALAYA JEWEL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P George

4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153, pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- (a) the acceptance is received ; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection

AALAYA JEWEL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P George

4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153, pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- (a) the acceptance is received ; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection

AMBATTUR CLOTHING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing adjustment has to be made only in\nrespect of the transaction of the assessee being a tested party, with\nassociated enterprise outside the country after comparing the transaction\nmade by similarly placed company in uncontrolled transaction with non-\nAssociated Enterprise. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the order of\nthe Dispute Resolution Panel Accordingly the order

HARLAND CLARKE HOLDING SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(2), CHENN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

sections 234B & 234C of the Act and Ground No.15 was against the initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds Nos.14 & 15 were not argued by ld.A.R. Consequently, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. In regard to the transfer pricing issues, it was submitted by ld.A.R that the assessee has three lines of business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. HITACHI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed\nby the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपीलसं./IT(TP)A No.: 17/CHNY/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nHitachi Solutions India Private\nLimited,\nBlock 5, 10th Floor, 1/124,\nDLF IT Park, Shivaji Gardens,\nMount Poonamallee Road,\nChennai - 600 089.\nThe Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nVs. Corporate Circle- 1(1),\nNo.121, M.G.Road,\nChennai - 600 034.\n[PAN:AAACZ-1544-R]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर

Transfer Pricing Officer (\"Ld. TPO\") after\nthe original limitation period of 18 months. As per the first proviso to Section\n153(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the \"Act\") no assessment shall be made\nby the Ld. AO after 18 months from the end of the relevant assessment year\n(for assessment years commencing on 1 April 2018). Since

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

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

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