ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

price arrived at ₹.193/- for the transferee company (M/s. ADP India private Limited) and ₹.910/- for the transferor company (M/s. ADP Solutions Private Limited), thereby, the assessee arrived at a goodwill value of ₹.24,50,82,483/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer show-caused the assessee as to why the depreciation on goodwill should not be disallowed. The Assessing Officer, after

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

price whichever is lower, which is different from valuation of securities for the purpose of books which is as per RBI guidelines. Since, the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case, we are of the considered view that, the Assessing Officer is erred in making additions towards disallowance

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,,KUMBAKONAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1),, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

price whichever is lower, which is different from valuation of securities for the purpose of books which is as per RBI guidelines. Since, the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case, we are of the considered view that, the Assessing Officer is erred in making additions towards disallowance

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

price whichever is lower, which is different from valuation of securities for the purpose of books which is as per RBI guidelines. Since, the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case, we are of the considered view that, the Assessing Officer is erred in making additions towards disallowance

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

price whichever is lower, which is different from valuation of securities for the purpose of books which is as per RBI guidelines. Since, the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case, we are of the considered view that, the Assessing Officer is erred in making additions towards disallowance

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

price whichever is lower, which is different from valuation of securities for the purpose of books which is as per RBI guidelines. Since, the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case, we are of the considered view that, the Assessing Officer is erred in making additions towards disallowance

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

price whichever is lower, which is different from valuation of securities for the purpose of books which is as per RBI guidelines. Since, the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case, we are of the considered view that, the Assessing Officer is erred in making additions towards disallowance

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

price arrived at ₹.193/- for the transferee company (M/s.\nADP India private Limited) and ₹.910/- for the transferor company (M/s.\nADP Solutions Private Limited), thereby, the assessee arrived at a goodwill\nvalue of ₹.24,50,82,483/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer show-caused\nthe assessee as to why the depreciation on goodwill should not be\ndisallowed. The Assessing Officer, after

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 dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

price whichever is lower. The appellant contended that the stand of the AO is not correct also the statement recorded during the survey has no evidentiary value. The appellant also submitted that this component of stock difference does not represent the value of any excess quantity of stock found during the course of survey in relation to the stock register

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)

transfer pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex- ITA No.672/Chny/201 /Chny/2017 (AY 2012-13) M/s.TVS Motor Co. Ltd. M/s.TVS Motor Co. Ltd. :: 16 :: factory sale at Rs.2,15,56,000/ factory

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)", "Section 92CA(3)", "Section 144C", "Section 43(1)", "Section 43(6)", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 32(1)(ii

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

pricing adjustments, disallowance under Section 14A, and the exclusion/inclusion of comparable companies in benchmarking analyses.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 14A", "Section 32(1)(ii)", "Section 43(1)", "Section 43(6)", "Rule 8D", "Section 92CA(3)", "Section 92C(3)" ], "issues": "Allowability of depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation and transfer

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

32 of the Finance Bill 2023 has proposed an amendment to Section 56 as follows: \"In Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, in sub-section 2 with effect from the 1° day of April 2024- (a) in clause (vii b), the words \"being a resident\" shall be omitted'. This makes it crystal clear that it is only from Assessment

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

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

ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB, as the\ncase may be, is received by the Assessing Officer,]\nshall be excluded:\nProvided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of\nlimitation referred to in sub-sections (1), 32[(1A),] (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the\nAssessing Officer

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 -:

32(1) (i1) cannot be accepted. All these rights are such, which cannot be independently traded or sold to the world at large. The agreement is between assessee and M/s Orchid India and not with these customers and contract manufacturers. Further the assessee has valued these aspects of customer relationships, 'contract manufacturing' etc. arbitrarily and without any technical study

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

1,11,31,745 3.39 3,77,36,616 VIII/2011-12 Total 10,69,94,336 5. The TPO thus determined the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of electricity transferred from section 80-IA eligible windmill division of the assessee to the textile division of the assessee at Rs.10,69,94,336/-. The assessee on the other hand had taken

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

32 of the Finance Bill 2023 has proposed\nan amendment to Section 56 as follows: \"In Section 56 of the\nIncome Tax Act, in sub-section 2 with effect from the 1° day of\nApril 2024- (a) in clause (vii b), the words \"being a resident\"\nshall be omitted'. This makes it crystal clear that it is only\nfrom Assessment

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

32. From the above decision, it is quite clear that where the price at which surplus power supplied by assessee to State Electricity Board was determined entirely by State Electricity Board in terms of statutory regulations and contract, such a price could not be equated with market value as was understood for purpose of section