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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER 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 issues.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec 14A", "Sec 92CA(3)", "Sec 92C(3)", "Sec 43(1)", "Sec 43(6)", "Sec 32(1)(ii)", "Rule 8D" ], "issues": "1. Whether goodwill arising from amalgamation is eligible for depreciation. 2. Whether disallowance under Section 14A can exceed exempt income. 3. Transfer

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

transfer of electricity to be Rs.10,69,94,336/- which in effect lead to the section 80-IA claim of the assessee being reduced by Rs.7,71,64,134/- (Rs.18,41,58,470 less Rs.10,69,94,336). 7. Aggrieved, the said issue was raised in appeal before the first appellate authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

price at which TNEB supplies electricity to its end consumers and asserted thus that the transfer of electricity from the captive windmills to the textile division of the assessee company has been at arm’s length. However, the TPO carried out FAR analysis of the assessee & the TNEB, and rejected the Sri Shanmugavel Mills Pvt. Ltd :: 3 :: method

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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

price or payment in kind or adjustment towards debt or for monetary\nconsideration. That the issue of ownership and possession nowhere\nform part of the provision and concept of transfer is alien to it.\n7.\nThe CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note of judgment in CIT vs\nDr.Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (1995 211 ITR 804 (Bom) wherein

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

43(5) of the Act apply only to transactions in 'commodity', it is respectfully submitted that the provisions of the said section are not at all applicable in the present case for the simple reason that foreign currency is not a trading commodity. 6.6 Transaction settled by way of actual delivery or transfer is not 'speculative' in nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

43(5) of the Act apply only to transactions in 'commodity', it is respectfully submitted that the provisions of the said section are not at all applicable in the present case for the simple reason that foreign currency is not a trading commodity. 6.6 Transaction settled by way of actual delivery or transfer is not 'speculative' in nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

43(5) of the Act apply only to transactions in\n'commodity', it is respectfully submitted that the provisions of the said section\nare not at all applicable in the present case for the simple reason that foreign\ncurrency is not a trading commodity.\n6.6 Transaction settled by way of actual delivery or transfer is not\n'speculative' in nature

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIANANCE CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

43(5) of the Act apply only to transactions in\n'commodity', it is respectfully submitted that the provisions of the said section\nare not at all applicable in the present case for the simple reason that foreign\ncurrency is not a trading commodity.\n6.6 Transaction settled by way of actual delivery or transfer is not\n'speculative' in nature

INTERNATIONAL FLAVOURS & FRAGRANCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

section 143(1)\n1,22,06,84,110\nAdd: Transfer Pricing additions\n13,43,66,276\nAdd: Disallowance of deduction

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (DCIT), CHENNAI-1, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

43(5) of the Act apply only to transactions in\n'commodity', it is respectfully submitted that the provisions of the said section\nare not at all applicable in the present case for the simple reason that foreign\ncurrency is not a trading commodity.\n6.6 Transaction settled by way of actual delivery or transfer is not\n'speculative' in nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

transfer of electricity to be\nRs.10,69,94,336/- which in effect lead to the section 80-IA claim of the assessee\nbeing reduced by Rs.7,71,64,134/- (Rs.18,41,58,470 less Rs.10,69,94,336).\n7. Aggrieved, the said issue was raised in appeal before the first appellate\nauthority, i.e., the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

HAMEED MARINE PRIVATE LIMITED,EDALAKUDY, NAGERCOIL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGERCOIL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAGERCOIL

In the result, Grounds relating to validity of notice u/s 143(2) are dismissed

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

Section 43(1) cannot be invoked mechanically. Satisfaction must be recorded and prior approval must be obtained. In absence of these statutory requirements, substitution of actual cost is unsustainable. 9. Upon perusal of the assessment order, there is no recorded satisfaction that the main purpose of transfer was tax reduction. There is no finding of collusion or inflated purchase price

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COASTAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED (UNDER OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

43(5) of the Act are not satisfied. Consequently, the provisions of the said section are not applicable in the instant case. 6.6 Transaction settled by way of actual delivery or transfer is not 'speculative' in nature: Further, the Ld.AR argued that in order to be a 'speculative transaction', there should be a contract for purchase or sale

M/S. COASTAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY LIQUIDATOR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2),CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

43(5) of the Act are not satisfied. Consequently, the provisions of the said section are not applicable in the instant case. 6.6 Transaction settled by way of actual delivery or transfer is not 'speculative' in nature: Further, the Ld.AR argued that in order to be a 'speculative transaction', there should be a contract for purchase or sale

M/S. COASTAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY LIQUIDATOR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

43(5) of the Act are not satisfied. Consequently, the provisions of the said section are not applicable in the instant case. 6.6 Transaction settled by way of actual delivery or transfer is not 'speculative' in nature: Further, the Ld.AR argued that in order to be a 'speculative transaction', there should be a contract for purchase or sale

M/S. COASTAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY LIQUIDATOR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

43(5) of the Act are not satisfied. Consequently, the provisions of the said section are not applicable in the instant case. 6.6 Transaction settled by way of actual delivery or transfer is not 'speculative' in nature: Further, the Ld.AR argued that in order to be a 'speculative transaction', there should be a contract for purchase or sale

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

43,953 from business and other sources. During the curse of the assessment proceedings, the ITO noticed that the assessee had purchased an extent of 11.23 acres of land for Rs. 12,700 on October 17, 1966, and another extent of 3.32 acres on May 31, 1966, for a sum of Rs. 14,562 and thus they owned an extent