SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1955 & 1956/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Maharaja Refineries, # 128, Bhavani Road, Erode-638 004. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Erode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaffs-8491-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Both Dated 07.06.2024 For

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. ORIENT GREEN POWER COMPANY LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA was invalid and bad in law. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT has contended that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits. She further contended that the ld. CIT(A) is not correct in applying an amendment retrospectively for this AY 2014-15 when

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“ the Act”) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) passed is not in accordance with law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principles of equity and natural justice. 2. Treatment of compensation as interest income 2.1 The learned

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“ the Act”) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) passed is not in accordance with law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principles of equity and natural justice. 2. Treatment of compensation as interest income 2.1 The learned

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“ the Act”) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) passed is not in accordance with law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principles of equity and natural justice. 2. Treatment of compensation as interest income 2.1 The learned

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“ the Act”) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) passed is not in accordance with law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principles of equity and natural justice. 2. Treatment of compensation as interest income 2.1 The learned

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 regulations. 6. Ground 6 – Erroneous adoption of Transaction Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) as the most appropriate method for sale of goods 6.1. That the Ld. TPO and Hon’ble DRP erroneously applied a residual method i.e., TNMM, and made an adjustment of INR :- 7 -: 204,59,59,557. 6.2. That, without prejudice, the Hon’ble DRP while applying

PFIZER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1-LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the corporate additions made in the assessment order would not survive

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.641/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Limited Dcit (Formerly Known As Hospira Healthcare India Corporate Circle-5(2)-Ltu, बनाम/ Private Limited) Chennai. Vs. 237, Emerald Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabco-2190-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

transfer pricing adjustments. iii) Having taken up such grounds, the assessee is putting up an expectation on part of the Assessing Officer to perform the impossible. iv) In this context, reference is made to the following case laws: (a) Shyamal Sarkar vs Commissioner of Income-tax, Siliguri reported in 250 Taxman 18(SC) (b) VLS Finance Ltd vs Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CHENNAI vs. SAINT - GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

6 :: 10. According to the Ld AR, since the transfer pricing proceedings were barred by limitation of time, the order dated 01.11.2019 is void-ab-initio and accordingly, the transfer pricing adjustment is non-est. Consequently, the Assessee cease to be an eligible assessee as defined under section 144C(15)(b) of the Act; and therefore, the machinery provisions

SAINT-GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NCC 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

6 :: 10. According to the Ld AR, since the transfer pricing proceedings were barred by limitation of time, the order dated 01.11.2019 is void-ab-initio and accordingly, the transfer pricing adjustment is non-est. Consequently, the Assessee cease to be an eligible assessee as defined under section 144C(15)(b) of the Act; and therefore, the machinery provisions

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...

section (3). 3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance

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...

section (3). 3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance

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...

section (3). 3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance