HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction … shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely’. :- 21 -: Clause (a) of rule 10B(1) prescribes the manner of determination of the ALP under the CUP method, which reads as under: “(a) comparable uncontrolled price method

YCH LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM, TAMILNADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -3(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ych Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech Sez Phase Ii, V. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacy-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment. Further, it was held that where the PLI of the assessee under TNMM is at arm’s length and it is not possible on the part of the department to identify a comparable, which is rendering similar services, the question of considering CUP method would not arise at all. Since the assessee has stated that

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

166 of paperbook and approval from Development Commissioner, MEPZ enclosed in Page 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3), CHENNAI vs. TRIMEX INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 14A of the Act r.w.rule 8D(2)(ii) & 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter the ‘Rules’) for interest disallowance and administrative expenses disallowance. For this, the assessee has raised various grounds in both the years, which are exhaustive and argumentative and hence, need not be reproduced. 3. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical

TRIMEX INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 14A of the Act r.w.rule 8D(2)(ii) & 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter the ‘Rules’) for interest disallowance and administrative expenses disallowance. For this, the assessee has raised various grounds in both the years, which are exhaustive and argumentative and hence, need not be reproduced. 3. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3), CHENNAI vs. TRIMEX INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 14A of the Act r.w.rule 8D(2)(ii) & 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter the ‘Rules’) for interest disallowance and administrative expenses disallowance. For this, the assessee has raised various grounds in both the years, which are exhaustive and argumentative and hence, need not be reproduced. 3. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical

M/S. VAASAUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURM vs. ACIT, COPRPORATE CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: - 2015-16 M/S.Vaasautomation India Pvt Ltd., The Asst.Commissioner Of Income Plot No.H18 & H19, Sipcot Industrial Tax(Osd), Park, Vallam Vadagal, Echoor Post, Corporate Circle-3(2), Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai Kancheepuram Dist, Kanchipuram-631604. [Pan: Aaach2759N] (अपीलार्थी/Assesse) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assesse By : Shri N.Venkatasubramanian, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024

166 (SC) stating it is not applicable to the appellant as it is not a financial institution. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the judgement in the case of Vijaya Bank pertains to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) and not under section 36(1)(viia). b. The above stand is also confirmed in the Ahmedabad

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 &

166 of paperbook and approval from Development Commissioner, MEPZ enclosed in Page 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

166 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi - Trib.). 9. Per contra, the Id. CIT-DR, Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT strongly supported the impugned orders of the PCIT dated 31.03.2024. The Id. DR argued that the original search assessment was done u/s 153A r.w.s 144 of the Act. The Id. DR further argued that the case law relied was of prior to insertion

ST.JOSEPH'S EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

166 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi - Trib.). 9. Per contra, the ld. CIT-DR, Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT strongly supported the impugned orders of the PCIT dated 31.03.2024. The ld. DR argued that the original search assessment was done u/s 153A r.w.s 144 of the Act. The ld. DR further argued that the case law relied was of prior to insertion

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

166 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi - Trib.). 9. Per contra, the ld. CIT-DR, Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT strongly supported the impugned orders of the PCIT dated 31.03.2024. The ld. DR argued that the original search assessment was done u/s 153A r.w.s 144 of the Act. The ld. DR further argued that the case law relied was of prior to insertion

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

166 Taxman 188 SC; 295 ITR 282 (SC), the ld.Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law after perusing the reply and documents submitted. 13. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P.) Ltd [2009] 177 Taxman 9 (Bombay) / [2010] 323 ITR 632 (Bombay) held

M/S T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAIVS.ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

price of the services not proved to have been received would be entitled only to a NIL payment form the service recipient if it happens to be a transaction with a uncontrolled party. Accordingly, the ALP of the claim of payment for the alleged claim of receipt of management support services is determined to be Nil..." The Ld.Counsel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. BUHARI HOLDINGS PRIVAE LIMITED, 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.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaacb 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

transfer of shares by the assessee in the scheme of amalgamation and therefore, there is no accrual of income. The assessee also relied on the decision on the Kolkata ITAT in the case of Kyal Developers P Ltd., in ITA No.627/2012 dated 13.3.2017 for AY 2008-09, in which an identical issue was considered and held that

SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly.\n15. In result, appeal of both the assessees in ITA No. 1172 & 1173/Chny/2025\nare allowed and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to\nsection 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block\nassessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect.\nSimilar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v.\nRajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the\nproviso