ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for\nany purpose\".\n5.4 The Id.CIT(A) erred in not observing that the assessee purchased the first\nunit K-40 in the FY 2011-12 and this unit was previously owned and used by\nM//s.AmitronicsPvt Ltd, Bangalore and this machine was originally installed

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

price whether or not received during the year of deemed transfer. In such an eventuality, hardship may be caused to the owner who would have paid full tax. No doubt, such a situation could be avoided if the contention of the applicant is accepted. On deep consideration, however, we find that the construction of the relevant provision should

PHILIPS FOODS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,TUTICORIN vs. PCIT-1, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer\n('TPO') under Section 92CA of the Act. Accordingly several notices\nunder section 92CA(2) and 92D(3

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

3). Hence the arms length price has been calculated as per culated as per the provision of sub-sections (1) and (2) of 92C and determined as Rs. sections (1) and (2) of 92C and determined as Rs. sections (1) and (2) of 92C and determined as Rs. 9,72,301 and Rs. 78,70,058 towards reimbursement of excess

RENAULT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Oil the basis of the incorrect conclusion that the transaction fell within the meaning of international transaction under section 92 B of the Act. The conclusion of the Ld. TPO / Assessing Officer wss based on suspicions, conjectures and assumptions; not based Oil any evidence and is contrary to the facts of the case. Objection 3

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 (3).]\n26[(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section\n263 by an order

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. FLAKT (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1032/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The assessee has adopted Transaction Net 6 I.T.A. No.1032/Mds/14 Margin Method as most appropriate method for the purpose of transfer pricing adjustment. For the purpose of Transaction Net Margin Method, the net profit margin realized by the enterprises from international transaction entered with Associate Enterprise, is computed

K.G. DENIM LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, TP-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1718/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 K G Denim Limited, Dcit, 1, Thenthirumalai, V. Tp-2(1), Jadayampalayam B.O., Chennai. Dhoddabavi, Coimbatore – 641 302. [Pan: Aaack-7940-C] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

Transfer Pricing Order dated 19.01.2023 without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The PCIT failed to appreciate that revision order was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 4. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the twin conditions prescribed for assuming jurisdiction under Section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Transfer Pricing is required to be ascertained and as the Arm’s Length Price is to be determined for this assessment year also in consultation with TPO-II, Chennai, the assessment is reopened u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 2.4 However, reassessment under section 143(3

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Transfer Pricing is required to be ascertained and as the Arm’s Length Price is to be determined for this assessment year also in consultation with TPO-II, Chennai, the assessment is reopened u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 2.4 However, reassessment under section 143(3

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD., CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Transfer Pricing is required to be ascertained and as the Arm’s Length Price is to be determined for this assessment year also in consultation with TPO-II, Chennai, the assessment is reopened u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 2.4 However, reassessment under section 143(3

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Transfer Pricing is required to be ascertained and as the Arm’s Length Price is to be determined for this assessment year also in consultation with TPO-II, Chennai, the assessment is reopened u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 2.4 However, reassessment under section 143(3

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

transfer pricing issues and disallowance under Section 14A, with decisions made on each point based on the facts and relevant legal precedents. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the extent of exempt income.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 143(3

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing

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

3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ` 1,43,58,919/- under Section 271G