M/S. BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

37[Explanation 1.]-For the removal of doubts 38, it is hereby declared that, for the\npurposes of this sub-section,-\n(a) an order passed 39[on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the\nAssessing Officer 40[or the Transfer Pricing

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, then for the purpose of deduction under section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm's length pricing. In other words, if the assessing officer rejects the price as not corresponding to the market value of such good, then he has to compute the sale price of the good

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

section 92CA(3) of the Act is barred by limitation, bad in law, void ab initio and thus, liable to be quashed . Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment amounting to INR 16,73,97,818 pertaining to the international transaction of receipt of corporate support services: 4.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.393/Chny/2018 & आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.89/Chny/2018 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Titan Company Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income No.3, Spicot Industrial Complex, Vs. Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. Ltu-2, [Pan: Aaact 5131A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing (TP) adjustment related to the claim u/s. 80IC ITA No.393/Chny/2015 & IT(TP)A No.89/Chny/2018 Titan Company Ltd. :- 3 -: of the Act. For the first two issues, the assessee placed reliance on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the Assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years, vide ITA Nos. 518, 505– 507/2018 dated

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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

price paid or promised or\npart-paid and part-promised.\nSale how made. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property\nof the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a\nreversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered\ninstrument.\nIn the case of tangible immoveable property of a value

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 order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was completed after the conclusion of the search, wherein the TPO proposed TP downward adjustment of Rs.407.25 crores on the imports from MIPP. The TPO did not propose any adjustment on the receipt of share capital reported in the Form 3CEB. The assessee had filed appeal against

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 order\nu/s.92CA(3) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was completed after\nthe conclusion of the search, wherein the TPO proposed TP\ndownward adjustment of Rs.407.25 crores on the imports from\nMIPP. The TPO did not propose any adjustment on the receipt of\nshare capital reported in the Form 3CEB. The assessee had filed\nappeal against

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

37[Explanation 1.]-For the removal of doubts 38, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) an order passed 39[on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer 40[or the Transfer Pricing

M/S ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD,NANDANAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 [1] , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. This position has been explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “10. We have perused the order passed

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.72/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.35/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.87/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. International Seaport Dredging Dcit / Jcit(Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-2(2) बनाम 5Th Floor, Challam Towers, Chennai. Old No.62, New No.113, / Vs. Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabci-2286-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A.Sasi Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: These Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Separate Orders Of Assessments Framed By Ld.

transfer pricing adjustment towards lease rental payments for AY 2013-14 and upheld the other adjustments and disallowances for AY 2013-14. 1. Further for the AY 2014-15, the DRP allowed the exclusion of certain comparable companies for computation of the upward adjustment made towards income received from deputation of personnel, while upholding the other adjustments made

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

37 :: (i) That conceptually there is no "cost of acquisition" which is attributable to the right of limited enjoyment transferred by the grant of the lease. There is no nexus between the "cost of acquisition" of the free-hold land and the right granted under the lease. For the same reason it is contended that there is no question

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of guarantee given for AE to at 0.5% of the amount guaranteed. 2. The next issue is regarding disallowance under Section 14A. For this Assessment Year, the amended provisions of Rule 8D, with effect from 2nd June 2016 will be applicable and the disallowance should be restricted to 1% of the average investment which