ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

INTEGRA SOFTWARE SERVICES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2014, found that the transactions with Associated Enterprise outside India was within arm's length and therefore, no adjustment was considered necessary. 4. Dr. M. Srinivasa Rao, the Ld. D.R. further submitted that the assessee claimed ₹6,59,53,207/- towards outsourcing charges. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee explained before

DCIT, PONDICHERRY CIRCLE, PUDUCHERRY vs. INTEGRA SOFTWARE SERVICES P.LTD., PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2014, found that the transactions with Associated Enterprise outside India was within arm's length and therefore, no adjustment was considered necessary. 4. Dr. M. Srinivasa Rao, the Ld. D.R. further submitted that the assessee claimed ₹6,59,53,207/- towards outsourcing charges. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee explained before

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

195(1) which in clear terms lays down that tax at source is deductible only from "sums chargeable" under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, i.e., chargeable under sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Income-tax Act.” 8.5 In view of the above decision (supra), the contention raised by the Ld. CIT, DR fails. For the reasons

SQS INDIA BFSI LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. THINKSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES LTD.),CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes for both the assessment years

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Commissioner Of Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Vs. Income Tax, Services Ltd.) Door No. 6A, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 6(2), Prince Infocity Ii, 283/3 & 283/4, Rajiv Chennai. Gandhi Salai (Omr), Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 036. [Pan:Aabct0976G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Export Commission Payment In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Also Challenged Confirmation Of Disallowance Towards Payments For Professional Services Rendered For Both The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2

195 of the Act stating that the said payment required to be subjected to deduction of tax at source, in the absence of which, the said expenditure would be liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and accordingly, disallowed the sales commission paid to non-resident agents which was confirmed

SQS INDIA BFSI LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. THINKSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES LTD.),CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes for both the assessment years

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Commissioner Of Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Vs. Income Tax, Services Ltd.) Door No. 6A, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 6(2), Prince Infocity Ii, 283/3 & 283/4, Rajiv Chennai. Gandhi Salai (Omr), Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 036. [Pan:Aabct0976G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Export Commission Payment In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Also Challenged Confirmation Of Disallowance Towards Payments For Professional Services Rendered For Both The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2

195 of the Act stating that the said payment required to be subjected to deduction of tax at source, in the absence of which, the said expenditure would be liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and accordingly, disallowed the sales commission paid to non-resident agents which was confirmed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

195 (SC), the jurisdictional Madras High Court in CIT vs Electro Polychem Ltd [2007] 294 ITR 661, in which it has been held that share capital cannot be assessed under Section 68.\n7.5.12 The appellant further stated that the AO made the addition of the share premium u/s 56(1) on the reason that that the share premium of Rs.240

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 -:

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

195 (SC), the jurisdictional\nMadras High Court in CIT vs Electro Polychem Ltd [2007]\n294 ITR 661, in which it has been held that share capital\ncannot be assessed under Section 68.\n7.5.12 The appellant further stated that the AO made the\naddition of the share premium u/s 56(1) on the reason\nthat that the share premium of Rs.240

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

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

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 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