SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, ERODE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) report regarding transactions with Associated Enterprises. The assessee's appeals reached the ITAT, which restored the matter to the AO for examining the allowability of expenditure under Section 40A(2

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. A dispute arose regarding the limitation period for completing the assessment.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reference to the Transfer Pricing

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

40A(3)\nRefund of land 5,12,22,100\nadvance u/s.\n68\n2011-12 143(3) r.w.s. 14A r.w.r. 9,71,30,943 2,18,34,576\n92CA/ 8D(2)\n27.03.2015 ROC Fee 45,00,000\nFD Interest as 2,18,34,576\nIOS\n2012-13 143(3) r.w.s. 14A r.w.r. 21,90,94,574 3,09,15,322\n92CA

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 orders are tabulated below:\nAsst year\nDate\nof TP\nReference\norder/dat\ne\nTP adjustment\n(Rs. in cores)\nRemarks\nto TPO\n2011-12\n01.10.2013\nOrder\nu/s.\n92CA(3)/\n21.01.20\n15\nNo\nadjustment\nTPO\nconcluded\nthat the Import of\nequipment from\nMIPP is at arm's\nlength price\n2012-13\n20.11.2014\nOrder\nu/s.\n92CA(3)/\n08.09.20\n15\nNo\nadjustment

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance of interest on TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance of interest on TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance of interest on TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue has raised four issues. The first issue being in Ground No.2.1 to 2.13 against the action of the learned CIT(A) in treating the non-compete fee paid

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue has raised four issues. The first issue being in Ground No.2.1 to 2.13 against the action of the learned CIT(A) in treating the non-compete fee paid

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue has raised four issues. The first issue being in Ground No.2.1 to 2.13 against the action of the learned CIT(A) in treating the non-compete fee paid

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue has raised four issues. The first issue being in Ground No.2.1 to 2.13 against the action of the learned CIT(A) in treating the non-compete fee paid

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue has raised four issues. The first issue being in Ground No.2.1 to 2.13 against the action of the learned CIT(A) in treating the non-compete fee paid

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue has raised four issues. The first issue being in Ground No.2.1 to 2.13 against the action of the learned CIT(A) in treating the non-compete fee paid

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue has raised four issues. The first issue being in Ground No.2.1 to 2.13 against the action of the learned CIT(A) in treating the non-compete fee paid

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue has raised four issues. The first issue being in Ground No.2.1 to 2.13 against the action of the learned CIT(A) in treating the non-compete fee paid

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue has raised four issues. The first issue being in Ground No.2.1 to 2.13 against the action of the learned CIT(A) in treating the non-compete fee paid

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue has raised four issues. The first issue being in Ground No.2.1 to 2.13 against the action of the learned CIT(A) in treating the non-compete fee paid

M/S. GRT JEWELLERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and even sales to related parties which form a part of related party transactions for Companies Act purposes but which are not in the nature of expenditure as required u/s 40A(2) of the Act. 10.4. For that the Learned DRP / AO erred in disallowing a sum of 13,73,09,683/-, which