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

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

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

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

transfer but subscribe actual earning of profit, then the impugned suggestion of the AO do not have legal sanctity in the eyes of law. 10.9 A very pertinent question has been raised by ld.AR Mr. Patel that what should be the line of demarcation to determine the sale price of a product if not the market price

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

transfer but subscribe actual earning of profit, then the impugned suggestion of the AO do not have legal sanctity in the eyes of law. 10.9 A very pertinent question has been raised by ld.AR Mr. Patel that what should be the line of demarcation to determine the sale price of a product if not the market price

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUNELVELI vs. LOYAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD, KOVILPATTI

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

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

192 & 193/Chny/2025 dated 30.10.2025 has followed the above decision and held that the transfer pricing provisions do not override the computation mechanism of section

CATERPILLAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

Section 40 (a) (i) does not arise. > Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the Appellant submit that the actual payment towards reimbursement of salary of seconded employees made by the Appellant is Rs.28,37,93,461 whereas the learned AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in disallowing a sum of Rs.77,97,40,472. As is evident

THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

192 Taxman 65 (Delhi) (iv) CIT v. National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. Ltd. [2010] 45 DTR 117 (Punj. & Har.) (v) Eastern Power Distribution Co. of AP Ltd Vs ACIT (139 TTJ 94) ITA No.2174/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) M/s. The India Cements Ltd. :: 23 :: 8.2 Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 8.3 Having heard

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine ALP of international transactions of the assessee with its AE. The TPO, vide order u/s. 92CA dated 15.01.2014 for assessment year 2010-11 has suggested downward adjustment of Rs. 4,48,24,686/- towards Intra- group and management services paid by the appellant to its AE. The TPO has suggested downward adjustment

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine ALP of international transactions of the assessee with its AE. The TPO, vide order u/s. 92CA dated 15.01.2014 for assessment year 2010-11 has suggested downward adjustment of Rs. 4,48,24,686/- towards Intra- group and management services paid by the appellant to its AE. The TPO has suggested downward adjustment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(3), CHENNAI., CHENNAI vs. M/S. CATERPILLAR INDIA PVT. LTD , CHENNAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 42/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Caterpillar India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Income Tax, Taramani Road, Vs. Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai – 600 113. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 717/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Caterpillar India Private Tax, Limited, 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle- 3(3), V. Chennai – 600 034. Taramani Road, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. By Virtual ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Dated 07.03.2023. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For :-2-: It(Tp) A. No:42 /Chny/2023 & The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

transfer pricing study has applied Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and basis that the assessee concluded that the international transactions at arm's length price (ALP) in arriving at the operating profit margins of the assessee. While computing the ALP the assessee made certain adjustments to its operating cost base. One of the adjustments thus

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

transfer of previously used machinery and hence not eligible for deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act. However, we note that the AO/DRP has denied deduction also on the grounds that LU2 was formed by splitting up or reconstruction of LU1, a distinct statutory condition under the law and assessee has raised them as grounds. As these grounds have not been

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1), , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 608/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hyundai Motor India V. Tax, Limited, Non Corporate Circle – 8(1), Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Chennai – 600 034. Industrial Park, Irungatukottai, Sriperumbudurtaluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602 117. [Pan: Aaach-2364-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

192/- as a revenue receipt chargeable to tax. The assessee has raised various other grounds on the same issue which are general in nature, argumentative, exhaustive and hence, need not be reproduced. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd., is wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Hyundai Motor Company Ltd., South Korea. The assessee

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 &

transfer of previously used machinery and hence not eligible for deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. However, we note that the AO/DRP has denied deduction also on the grounds that LU2 was formed by splitting up or reconstruction of LU1, a distinct statutory condition under the law and assessee has raised them as grounds. As these grounds have not been adjudicated

M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

transferred through banking channels. Further neither of the lower authorities have doubted the source of the investment and as such they cannot hinder the genuine and bona fide business transactions. Therefore, in the absence of this primary criteria (i.e. investment is out of unaccounted money), we feel invocation of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is against main objective

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)

Transfer Pricing, as contained in sections 92 and 92F of the Act that had come into force, with effect from assessment year 2002-03 onwards. 23. The Circular reinforces the position that it is sine qua non for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction prior to taking any steps in the matter of assessment, including reference of the matter

ORCHID PHARMA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

transfer pricing provisions rather than making these provisions unworkable. That meaning had to be a dominant influence which leads to de facto control over the other enterprise rather than an influence simplictor. If we are to adopt literal meaning of influence, as has been adopted by the authorities below, all the transactions on negotiated prices will

POS-HYUNDAI STEEL MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXOF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 LTU, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2485/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Pos – Hyundai Steel Manufacturing Deputy Commissioner Of Income India Private Limited, Vs. Tax, F-70, Sipcot Industrial Park, Circle -1, Ltu, Irungattukottai S.O., Chennai. Kanchipuram – 602 117. [Pan:Aaacp-6484-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 143(3) :-2-: ITA. No:2485/Chny/2024 r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), is bad in law and on facts. 2. Erroneous rejection of Segmentation provided by the Appellant 2.1 The Ld. TPO and the Ld. DRP erred in law and on facts in disregarding the certified segmental profitability between AE and Non-AE segment which