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

Transfer Agreement. Therefore, the claim of arm’s length price on royalty claimed on development of revenue was determined as ‘Nil’. Before us, the assessee explained the activities, which involved high degree of expertise and cannot be undertaken directly by semi-skilled or unskilled workmen, which is as follows:- Wind farm development Erection & Commissioning - Providing guidelines to use Environmental sustainability

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

Transfer Agreement. Therefore, the claim of arm’s length price on royalty claimed on development of revenue was determined as ‘Nil’. Before us, the assessee explained the activities, which involved high degree of expertise and cannot be undertaken directly by semi-skilled or unskilled workmen, which is as follows:- Wind farm development Erection & Commissioning - Providing guidelines to use Environmental sustainability

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 adjustment would be non-est. Consequently, the assessee would cease to be an eligible assessee as defined u/s 144C(15)(b) of the Act and therefore, the machinery provisions of Section 144C of the Act would not get triggered in the assessee’s case. In such a scenario, the assessment in the case of the assessee ought

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 adjustment would be non-est. Consequently, the assessee would cease to be an eligible assessee as defined u/s 144C(15)(b) of the Act and therefore, the machinery provisions of Section 144C of the Act would not get triggered in the assessee’s case. In such a scenario, the assessment in the case of the assessee ought

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

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 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 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

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

price ought to have been Rs.56.36/share. The Ld.AO consequently made an addition of Rs.42,29,48,758/- invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11UA. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the findings of the Ld.AO. The assessee is assailing the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) dated

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

155 taxmann.com 580 (Cal), wherein the Hon'ble High Court upheld the view that such an assessment suffers from a jurisdictional defect and cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity, holding as under: - “9. Thus, considering these aspects, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal rightly allowed the assessee's appeal on the said issue. This Court

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

155/- already offered ITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 6 :: by the assessee, the further disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) comes to Rs.27,88,820/-. Hence, respectfully following the decision of Special Bench (supra), the AO is directed to verify this computation provided by the assessee and re-compute the disallowance under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

Transfer Pricing Officer, for the purpose of determining the Arm's Length Price with reference to the 'international transaction carried out by the assessee with its associated enterprises during the F.Y. 2006-07 as per the provisions of sec 92C of the Act. In response to the same, the TPO passed order vide C.R.No.A-103/TPO-I/A.Y.2007-08 dated 16.09.2010 stating

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

Transfer Pricing Officer, for the purpose of determining the Arm's Length Price with reference to the 'international transaction carried out by the assessee with its associated enterprises during the F.Y. 2006-07 as per the provisions of sec 92C of the Act. In response to the same, the TPO passed order vide C.R.No.A-103/TPO-I/A.Y.2007-08 dated 16.09.2010 stating

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

Transfer Pricing Officer, for the purpose of determining the Arm's Length Price with reference to the 'international transaction carried out by the assessee with its associated enterprises during the F.Y. 2006-07 as per the provisions of sec 92C of the Act. In response to the same, the TPO passed order vide C.R.No.A-103/TPO-I/A.Y.2007-08 dated 16.09.2010 stating

SARAVANAN ARUMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty.] (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

FUJI ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.7,96,238/- is allowed. 9. The Assessee has created two provisions in the year end viz., 1) Provision for Installation and Authorised services: Rs.65,50,563/- and 2) Provision for Sales Commission: Rs.1,85,56,926/-. 10. In the Draft Assessment Order, the AO has disallowed the same on the ground that provision

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

price the same would not conclusively establish the correctness of the claim made by an assessee if the AO is of the opinion that the transaction is by way of subterfuge or device in order to avoid tax which the assessee is otherwise liable to pay or that the transaction is illusory or colourable or that the assessee has acted