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

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

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

M/S. SAMEDEUTZ-FAHR INDIA PVT. LTD.,RANIPET vs. ACIT, VELLORE

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

section 250(6) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the CIT(A) is erroneous and contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. :- 2 -: 2. TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS: 2.1 The Order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous in so far as upholding the order AO with respect to Transfer Pricing downward adjustment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of guarantee given for AE to at 0.5% of the amount guaranteed. 2. The next issue is regarding disallowance under Section 14A. For this Assessment Year, the amended provisions of Rule 8D, with effect from 2nd June 2016 will be applicable and the disallowance should be restricted to 1% of the average investment which

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

163 of paperbook) 14. It may be relevant to note that LU2 operates from an adjacent but different leased premise on 33.44 acres of land and an agreement to this effect was executed with Cheyyar SEZ Developers Private Limited (Page 186 of the paperbook). 15. Deduction under Section 10AA of the Act The ld.AR submitted that Section 10AA

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)

163 of the Act. as CB & I Lummus Mauritius is a created structure to avoid tax and is not a distinct legal entity. The same would be discussed in the later part of the order. 4.13 The Assessing Officer in her concluding remarks via her remand report submitted that a procedural error which was not pointed out by the appellant

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

163 of paperbook) 14. It may be relevant to note that LU2 operates from an adjacent but different leased premise on 33.44 acres of land and an agreement to this effect was executed with Cheyyar SEZ Developers Private Limited (Page 186 of the paperbook). 15. Deduction under Section 10AA of the Act The Id.AR submitted that Section 10AA

WINERGY DRIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1720/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Winergy Drive Systems India The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited (Merged With Vs. Income Tax, Siemens Ltd.), Corporate Taxation, Company Circle Iii(3), 3Rd Floor, 130 Pandurang Budhkar Chennai . Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. [Pan: Aaacw5466B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghunathan Sampath, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

163. The revenue has justified consideration of industrial average as comparable uncontrolled transaction. Before the Transfer Pricing Officer as also in proceedings before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) , the taxpayer had objected to adoption of average and objection is noted in para 7.13.1 (page 42) of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order as under.- “As per OECD

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JOHN CRANE SEALING SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

Transfer Pricing 3 ITA Nos.621 & 785/Mds/2016 (AY 2011-12) John Crane Sealing Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Officer (TPO) did not find any fault with the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), using Operating Profit (OP) to Operating Cost (OC) as the Profit Level Index (PLI), adopted by the company as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for bench marking the Manufacturing

JOHN CRANE SEALING SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

Transfer Pricing 3 ITA Nos.621 & 785/Mds/2016 (AY 2011-12) John Crane Sealing Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Officer (TPO) did not find any fault with the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), using Operating Profit (OP) to Operating Cost (OC) as the Profit Level Index (PLI), adopted by the company as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for bench marking the Manufacturing

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

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

163 Brand Value (in 158.74 66.93 Crores) Less:- Nil (Not required as 10% Variance in per Standards / 6.69 Estimation practices) Total Brand Value (in Crores) 158.74 60.24 6.1 The assessee claimed that conservatism adopted by the company in its approach to valuation is very clear from the above table. The company could have actually valued its brand in-total

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

163 Brand Value (in 158.74 66.93 Crores) Less:- Nil (Not required as 10% Variance in per Standards / 6.69 Estimation practices) Total Brand Value (in Crores) 158.74 60.24 6.1 The assessee claimed that conservatism adopted by the company in its approach to valuation is very clear from the above table. The company could have actually valued its brand in-total

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

163 Brand Value (in 158.74 66.93 Crores) Less:- Nil (Not required as 10% Variance in per Standards / 6.69 Estimation practices) Total Brand Value (in Crores) 158.74 60.24 6.1 The assessee claimed that conservatism adopted by the company in its approach to valuation is very clear from the above table. The company could have actually valued its brand in-total

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

163 Brand Value (in 158.74 66.93 Crores) Less:- Nil (Not required as 10% Variance in per Standards / 6.69 Estimation practices) Total Brand Value (in Crores) 158.74 60.24 6.1 The assessee claimed that conservatism adopted by the company in its approach to valuation is very clear from the above table. The company could have actually valued its brand in-total