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

Transfer Pricing Officer to verify the domestic transactions in the case of guarantee offered by IDBI bank Ltd charging 1 % guarantee commission to M/s S Tel P. Ltd for the F.Y. 2008-09. 2.3 The Id. DRP ought to have noted that domestic transactions cannot be taken as benchmark for determining ALP for international transactions. 2.4 The Id. DRP failed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer to verify the domestic transactions in the case of guarantee offered by IDBI bank Ltd charging 1 % guarantee commission to M/s S Tel P. Ltd for the F.Y. 2008-09. 2.3 The Id. DRP ought to have noted that domestic transactions cannot be taken as benchmark for determining ALP for international transactions. 2.4 The Id. DRP failed

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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...

253(4), which provides as follows: The Assessing Officer or the assessee, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part

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...

253(4), which provides as follows: The Assessing Officer or the assessee, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part

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...

253(4), which provides as follows: The Assessing Officer or the assessee, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part

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...

253(4), which provides as follows: The Assessing Officer or the assessee, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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...

253(4), which provides as follows: The Assessing Officer or the assessee, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part

RENAULT NISSAN TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS CENRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

transfer pricing documentation and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall follow the statutory provisions and pass the necessary orders as provided under Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 5. The next issue arises for consideration is exclusion of expenditure

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer pricing adjustment for fresh adjudication. Simultaneously, the assessee also challenged the order of Tribunal i.e., original order passed in ITA No.322/Mds/2016 dated 30.06.2016 and also challenged the Tribunal order passed in M.P. No.218/Mds/2016 dated 04.04.2017 before Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the Hon’ble High Court in Tax Case Appeal Nos.480 and 473 of 2017 vide order

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

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of captive power valuation for the purpose of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. b. The deletion of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on domestic commission. The learned Departmental Representative (ld.DR) reiterated the grounds taken by the Revenue, contending that the ld.CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUNELVELI vs. M/S.LOYAL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KOVILPATTI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Loyal Textile Mills Tax, Limited, Circle-1, New No.21, Old No.4, Tirunelveli. Mill Street, Kovilpatti, Tamil Nadu-628 501. [Pan: Aaacl2632C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Bhupendran, Advocate. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.Krishna Murthy At, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of captive power valuation for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA. Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos.192 & 193 /Chny/2025 (AY-2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s.Loyal Textile Mills Limited. b. The deletion of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on commission paid to non-resident agents. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) reiterated the grounds taken

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI vs. M/S.LOYAL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KOVILPATTI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Loyal Textile Mills Tax, Limited, Circle-1, New No.21, Old No.4, Tirunelveli. Mill Street, Kovilpatti, Tamil Nadu-628 501. [Pan: Aaacl2632C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Bhupendran, Advocate. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.Krishna Murthy At, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of captive power valuation for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA. Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos.192 & 193 /Chny/2025 (AY-2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s.Loyal Textile Mills Limited. b. The deletion of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on commission paid to non-resident agents. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) reiterated the grounds taken

T.L.SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-14, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1596/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 13, (Old No. 1), V. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non-Corporate Circle -14, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Aepps-6766-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

price must be arrived at if asset is a capital asset. Computation of income charged under the heading ‘capital gains’ shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has computed the capital gain in terms of section 48 r.w.s. 50C of the Act. The computation of capital gain

AALAYA JEWEL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P George

Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment of `2,57,04,337/-. A Draft assessment order based on TPO recommendations was proposed by the ld. Assessing Officer on 29.12.2016. Assessee thereupon filed an application before the Dispute ITA Nos.970 & 971/Mds./17 :- 3 -: Resolution Panel, (DRP) on 31.01.2017. Though in such application, assessee recorded the date of receipt of draft assessment order

AALAYA JEWEL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P George

Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment of `2,57,04,337/-. A Draft assessment order based on TPO recommendations was proposed by the ld. Assessing Officer on 29.12.2016. Assessee thereupon filed an application before the Dispute ITA Nos.970 & 971/Mds./17 :- 3 -: Resolution Panel, (DRP) on 31.01.2017. Though in such application, assessee recorded the date of receipt of draft assessment order

THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. ,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , MADURAI

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

253 (SC), though the said decision has been specifically held to be inapplicable to the West Bengal IPA subsidy by the Calcutta High Court in Rasoi Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438, cited supra. 3. The learned CIT(A) committed factual errors in failing to note that the West Bengal Govt. abolished all sales tax related incentives with effect from

THE RAMCO CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, MADURAI

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

253 (SC), though the said decision has been specifically held to be inapplicable to the West Bengal IPA subsidy by the Calcutta High Court in Rasoi Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438, cited supra. 3. The learned CIT(A) committed factual errors in failing to note that the West Bengal Govt. abolished all sales tax related incentives with effect from

DCIT, MADURAI vs. THE RAMCO CEMENTS LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

253 (SC), though the said decision has been specifically held to be inapplicable to the West Bengal IPA subsidy by the Calcutta High Court in Rasoi Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438, cited supra. 3. The learned CIT(A) committed factual errors in failing to note that the West Bengal Govt. abolished all sales tax related incentives with effect from