DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

section 32(1)(ii). The AO further held that since there is no right, there is no question of depreciation. 4.3 The Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) made adjustments for the Management Fee claimed to be paid by assessee to its Associated Enterprises(AE), only for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13. We are hereby discussing and adjudicating issue-wise. First

TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HOSUR vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") in making an adjustment of Rs.55,246,168/, with respect to the imputed cost of interest on interest advances provided by the Appellant and in determining arm's length royalty receipts from affiliates and unrelated third parties under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the and thereby grossly erred; a. In bringing within the ambit

MOVATE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

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

168 of paperbook]; further the Assessee had submitted the segmentation certified by another external CA along with its reply to SCN on 13.07.2023 [page 391-397 of paperbook], which is arbitrarily disregarded by the TPO by merely saying it is obtained after issuance of SCN though it was obtained and furnished before the completion of TP assessment. In fact

SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2052/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08

price of the assessee company Rs.14,31,99,168/- Difference to be adjusted Rs.1,17,62,336/- :- 8 -: 3.0 The AO on receipt of order from the TPO issued draft the Assessment Order proposing the adjustments suggested by the TPO. Against the draft Assessment Order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP. The DRP rejected the assessee’s objections regarding

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), INTERNTIONAL TAXATION, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PETROFAC ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD,,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for both

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.656 & 657/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs M/S. Petrofac Engineering The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Pvt.Ltd. 7Th Floor, Block 9A Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai. Dlf Infocity Sez 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Nandambakkam Post Manapakkam, Chennai-600089. Pan: Aaecp 1211H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

price of the computer programme as goods, either in a medium which stores the software or in a medium by which software is embedded in hardware, which may be then further resold by the distributor to the end-user in India, the distributor making a profit on such resale. Importantly, the distributor does not get the right

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PETROFAC ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for both

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.656 & 657/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs M/S. Petrofac Engineering The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Pvt.Ltd. 7Th Floor, Block 9A Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai. Dlf Infocity Sez 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Nandambakkam Post Manapakkam, Chennai-600089. Pan: Aaecp 1211H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

price of the computer programme as goods, either in a medium which stores the software or in a medium by which software is embedded in hardware, which may be then further resold by the distributor to the end-user in India, the distributor making a profit on such resale. Importantly, the distributor does not get the right

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

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

168 (Pune Trib.) For assessment year 2015-16 wherein it has been held that- “4. We observe from plain reading of sec. 43CA that it provides in a case where consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of an asset other than the capital asset being land or building is lesser than the value

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

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

168 (Pune Trib.) For assessment year 2015-16 wherein it has been held that- “4. We observe from plain reading of sec. 43CA that it provides in a case where consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of an asset other than the capital asset being land or building is lesser than the value

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

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

168 (Pune Trib.) For assessment year 2015-16 wherein it has been held that- “4. We observe from plain reading of sec. 43CA that it provides in a case where consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of an asset other than the capital asset being land or building is lesser than the value

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

168 (Pune Trib.) For assessment year\n2015-16 wherein it has been held that-\n“4. We observe from plain reading of sec. 43CA that it provides in a\ncase where consideration received or accruing as a result of the\ntransfer by an assessee of an asset other than the capital asset being\nland or building is lesser than

M/S. DORLING KINDERSLEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer pricing provisions. No doubt, to the clause under which the assessee comes. For this, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries [2008] 231 ELT 22. 10. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

transferred as sales, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the peak credit considered for addition under Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

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

transferred as sales, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the peak credit considered for addition under Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

transferred as sales, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the peak credit considered for addition under Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

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

transferred as sales, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the peak credit considered for addition under Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LTD, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

transfer of the commodity. In other words, the transaction must be settled on a net-net basis, whereby the difference between the price prevailing on the settlement date and the contracted price is paid/ received by the parties to the contract. Given that the contracts are settled by actual delivery and not on a net-to-net basis, the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

transfer of the commodity. In other words, the transaction must be settled on a net-net basis, whereby the difference between the price prevailing on the settlement date and the contracted price is paid/ received by the parties to the contract. Given that the contracts are settled by actual delivery and not on a net-to-net basis, the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2835, 2836 & 2820/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company V. Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain Ca & Mr. Kunal Shah, Ca & Ms. Aashna Dhila, Ca : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 :-2-:

price say INR 9,000 million. At the end of the tenure, CIFCL pays :-6-: ITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820, 2835&2836/Chny/2024 the amount of INR 9,000 million to HSBC in lieu of USD 100 million. CIFCL would then repay the loan of USD 100 million to the foreign bank. By virtue of this forward contract, no foreign currency