ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 Prabhu Spining Mills Private 121, Adarns Plaza, Vs. Limited, 60, Feet Road, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 602. Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

transfer of the goods and services falling u/s.80IA(8) has to be compulsorily be determined under arm‟s length principle. Had it been so, then post introduction of SDT in Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation to goods or services means

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPUR vs. SRI SHANMUGAVEL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

transfer of the goods and services falling u/s.80IA(8) has to be compulsorily be determined under arm‟s length principle. Had it Sri Shanmugavel Mills Pvt. Ltd :: 11 :: been so, then post introduction of SDT in Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1010/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Eaton Power Quality Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Pondicherry Circle, Puducherry 605 111, Pondicherry. Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 35/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Eaton Power Quality Private The Assessing Officer, Limited, V. National E-Assessment Centre, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Delhi. Puducherry 605 111, Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishal Kalra, Advocate : Shri. S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

22. Limitation has been prescribed for each stage/process in an assessment, commencing with the filing of a return, transfer pricing proceedings under Section

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

price or payment in kind or adjustment towards debt or for monetary\nconsideration. That the issue of ownership and possession nowhere\nform part of the provision and concept of transfer is alien to it.\n7.\nThe CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note of judgment in CIT vs\nDr.Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (1995 211 ITR 804 (Bom) wherein

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 -:

22 -: transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transaction. The adjusted price is taken as ALP. On going through the mandate of the CUP method, it follows that the benchmark price is the actually transacted price (charged or paid and not some theoretical price) in a comparable uncontrolled situation. 8.7 The Assessee has submitted that sale to AEs are at armed length

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

Transfer Pricing orders are tabulated below:\nAsst year Date of TP order/dat TP adjustment Remarks\nReference to TPO e (Rs. in cores)\n2011-12 01.10.2013 Order u/s. No\n92CA(3)/ adjustment\n21.01.20\n15\nTPO concluded that the Import of\nEquipment from\nMIPP is at arm's\nlength price\n2012-13 20.11.2014 Order No\nu/s. adjustment\n92CA(3)/\n08.09.20\n15\nTPO

ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

section 264 is passed by\nthe 24[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner, as the case may be] :\nProvided that where it is not possible for the Assessing Officer 22[or the Transfer Pricing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

22. Reverting back to sub-section (8) of Section 80-IA, it is seen that if the assessing\nofficer disputes the consideration for supply of any goods by the assessee as\nrecorded in the accounts of the eligible business on the ground that it does not\ncorrespond to the market value of such goods as on the date

GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

price. He argued that there is no element of transfer so as to attract\nthe provision of section 2(47) of the Act and hence there cannot be any\nlevy of tax on capital gain under section 45 of the Act on the event of\nintroduction of a new partner. He has further submitted that even if the\namount

INTERNATIONAL FLAVOURS & FRAGRANCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

section 143(1)\n1,22,06,84,110\nAdd: Transfer Pricing additions\n13,43,66,276\nAdd: Disallowance of deduction

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

Transfer Pricing orders are tabulated below:\nAsst year\nDate\nof TP\nReference\norder/dat\ne\nTP adjustment\n(Rs. in cores)\nRemarks\nto TPO\n2011-12\n01.10.2013\nOrder\nu/s.\n92CA(3)/\n21.01.20\n15\nNo\nadjustment\nTPO\nconcluded\nthat the Import of\nequipment from\nMIPP is at arm's\nlength price\n2012-13\n20.11.2014\nOrder\nu/s.\n92CA(3)/\n08.09.20\n15\nNo\nadjustment

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

Transfer pricing documentation\nwithout providing any specific reasons for rejecting the same and without appreciating\nthe fact that they are functionally comparable\n5. TPO's comparable companies to be rejected\n5.1 The TPO has erred in conducting a fresh benchmarking study and selecting fresh\ncomparable companies (Elecon EPC Projects Ltd. [Merged], Jost'S Engineering Co.\nLtd., McNally Bharat Engg

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

section, therefore, brings out the distinction between a price paid for a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and the rent to be paid periodically to the lessor. When the interest of the lessor is parted with for a price, the price paid is premium or salami. But the periodical payments made for the continuous enjoyment

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

Transfer pricing documentation\nwithout providing any specific reasons for rejecting the same and without appreciating\nthe fact that they are functionally comparable\n5. TPO's comparable companies to be rejected\n5.1 The TPO has erred in conducting a fresh benchmarking study and selecting fresh\ncomparable companies (Elecon EPC Projects Ltd. [Merged], Jost'S Engineering Co.\nLtd., McNally Bharat Engg

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)

22 September 2023 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. :-2-: ITA. No: 1330/Chny/2023 The detailed grounds of appeal, Including the position in law and facts is set out in the ensuing paragraphs. 2. Grounds relating to Transfer pricing

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

Transfer pricing documentation\nwithout providing any specific reasons for rejecting the same and without appreciating\nthe fact that they are functionally comparable\n5. TPO's comparable companies to be rejected\n5.1 The TPO has erred in conducting a fresh benchmarking study and selecting fresh\ncomparable companies (Elecon EPC Projects Ltd. [Merged], Jost'S Engineering Co.\nLtd., McNally Bharat Engg

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

22 :: the Act which stands incorporated by sub-section (6) of section 80-IC, by virtue of which, sub-section (5) and sub section (7) to (12) of section 80IA is brought into Section 80-IC of the Act. Section 80-IA(8) of the Act mandates that, the profits of the eligible business shall be computed on the basis

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

22 :: the Act which stands incorporated by sub-section (6) of section 80-IC, by virtue of which, sub-section (5) and sub section (7) to (12) of section 80IA is brought into Section 80-IC of the Act. Section 80-IA(8) of the Act mandates that, the profits of the eligible business shall be computed on the basis