DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1885/Chny/2017 & 665/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2013-14 Doosan Power Systems India The Jcit / Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle -1(1), 16Th Floor, Dlf Square, Chennai. Jacaranda Marg, Near Nh-8, Dlf Phase-Ii, Gurgaon – 122 002. Pan: Aabcb 5946J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

transfer pricing assessment proceedings, not appreciating that the financial statements of the Company were available in the public domain. 5. The Ld. AO, Ld. TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law in violating the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules by rejecting Harita Techserv Ltd. (‘Harita

DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD,HARYANA vs. JCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1885/Chny/2017 & 665/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2013-14 Doosan Power Systems India The Jcit / Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle -1(1), 16Th Floor, Dlf Square, Chennai. Jacaranda Marg, Near Nh-8, Dlf Phase-Ii, Gurgaon – 122 002. Pan: Aabcb 5946J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

transfer pricing assessment proceedings, not appreciating that the financial statements of the Company were available in the public domain. 5. The Ld. AO, Ld. TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law in violating the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules by rejecting Harita Techserv Ltd. (‘Harita

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer pricing adjustment, the TPO noted from the audit report in Form No.3CEB that there is a claim of revenue expenditure on account of usage of brand name amounting to Rs. 45 Lakhs and payment of Rs. 155 Lakhs for purchase of brand name and capitalize the same in the books of accounts claiming depreciation. The TPO noted the facts

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer pricing adjustment, the TPO noted from the audit report in Form No.3CEB that there is a claim of revenue expenditure on account of usage of brand name amounting to Rs. 45 Lakhs and payment of Rs. 155 Lakhs for purchase of brand name and capitalize the same in the books of accounts claiming depreciation. The TPO noted the facts

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

194C of the Act. 9.3 On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 9.4 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made disallowance towards payment made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

194C of the Act. 9.3 On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 9.4 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made disallowance towards payment made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

194C of the Act. 9.3 On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 9.4 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made disallowance towards payment made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

194C of the Act. 9.3 On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 9.4 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made disallowance towards payment made

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO had erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without naming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found to have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO had erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without naming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found to have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

SHIR. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO had erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without naming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found to have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL ,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO had erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without naming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found to have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL, PALAMEDU MAIN ROAD, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nappeals of the assessee are partly allowed

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A)\nafter considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO\nhad erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without\nnaming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found\nto have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

A.GOVINDARAJ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, CENTRAL RANGE, MADURAI vs. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL, PALAMEDU MAIN ROAD MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nappeals of the assessee are partly allowed

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A)\nafter considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO\nhad erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without\nnaming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found\nto have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL, CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A)\nafter considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO\nhad erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without\nnaming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found\nto have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A)\nafter considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO\nhad erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without\nnaming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found\nto have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these