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 Officer (herein after referred to as ‘’the TPO ‘’) in accordance with Section 92CA of the Act. Ld. TPO accepted the claim of the assessee that the transactions mentioned at para 4

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

4. On the contrary, Shri Kapil Hirani, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the services rendered by the Associate Enterprise to the assessee-company is not in dispute. In fact, this was accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel. The only dispute is with regard to adoption of most appropriate method. The assessee adopted

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

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

pricing qua International transactions undertaken\nby the assesse. It was submitted that the impugned report submitted by\nthe TPO forms the basis of the income determined by the Ld. AO u/s\n143(3) vide his order dated 04.05.2021. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse\nargued that the additional grounds raised by it lies at the base of the\ncontroversy

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)

4 are general in nature and therefore, it does not require any adjudication. ITA No.672/Chny/201 /Chny/2017 (AY 2012-13) M/s.TVS Motor Co. Ltd. M/s.TVS Motor Co. Ltd. :: 2 :: 3. 5 &6 are against the transfer pricing ad are against the transfer pricing adjustment of Ground Nos. 5 & Rs.1,28,90,0000/- made by the TPO in relation to the corporate

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

transferred to the Central Government, State Government local authority or any other statutory authority" (also ref. CBDT Circular no. 14/2001 dated 9/11/2001) developed and begins to operate. Further, as can be made out from the section the deduction will be in respect of income generated from operation of the infrastructure facility in the following specified years as mentioned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

transferred to the Central Government, State Government local authority or any other statutory authority" (also ref. CBDT Circular no. 14/2001 dated 9/11/2001) developed and begins to operate. Further, as can be made out from the section the deduction will be in respect of income generated from operation of the infrastructure facility in the following specified years as mentioned

DCIT , COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED , ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

transferred to the Central Government, State Government local\nauthority or any other statutory authority\"\n(also ref. CBDT Circular no. 14/2001 dated 9/11/2001)\nThus, as contained in the above clarification an assessee is entitled to\ndeduction under section 80IA only after the infrastructure facility is\ndeveloped and begins to operate. Further, as can be made out from\nthe section

GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

price. He argued that there is no element of transfer so as to attract\nthe provision of section 2(47) of the Act and hence there cannot be any\nlevy of tax on capital gain under section 45 of the Act on the event of\nintroduction of a new partner. He has further submitted that even if the\namount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

transferred to the Central Government, State Government local\nauthority or any other statutory authority\"\n(also ref. CBDT Circular no. 14/2001 dated 9/11/2001)\nThus, as contained in the above clarification an assessee is entitled to\ndeduction under section 80IA only after the infrastructure facility is\ndeveloped and begins to operate. Further, as can be made out from\nthe section

PANASONIC CORPORATION,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Transfer Pricing Officer. Referring to Section 92CA(4) of the Act, the Ld. representative submitted that the Assessing Officer is bound

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

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

transfer pricing proceedings under Section 92, filing of objections to draft assessment order in terms of Section 144C(2), passing of final order of assessment after expiry of the period for filing of objections in terms of Section 144C(4

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3137/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

4. The Ld. AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”)/ DRP has erred, in laws and facts, by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules, with respect to the international transaction pertaining to support services (“impugned transaction”) provided by the associated enterprises (“AEs”) to the Appellant and further