BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

439 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 43(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,531Mumbai2,207Bangalore881Ahmedabad458Chennai439Karnataka367Kolkata359Hyderabad315Jaipur292Chandigarh216Pune185Surat153Indore147Cochin105Rajkot63Calcutta61SC54Cuttack52Lucknow44Visakhapatnam44Raipur41Telangana40Nagpur39Agra28Guwahati28Jodhpur21Amritsar18Rajasthan9Kerala8Ranchi8Dehradun7Allahabad7Varanasi6Orissa5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Panaji4Patna2DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1Andhra Pradesh1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)71Disallowance49Addition to Income48Section 8035Deduction32Section 19530Section 80H24Section 4023Section 14A19

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 744/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Punna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

43 of the Vol-1. 2. Permission to Develop: 3. Statutory Approvals 4. Construction 5. Cost of Construction 6. Sharing of Built up area and car parking area 7. Commencement and completion of construction 8. Marketing & Sale of owners constructed area 9. Indemnity 10. Transfer of Developers share 11. Taxes, Maintenance charges, Deposits etc., on owners constructed area 12. Maintenance

Showing 1–20 of 439 · Page 1 of 22

...
Transfer Pricing18
Section 92C13
Depreciation13

MAJESTIC EXPORTS,TIRUPPUR vs. JCIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1336/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1336 & 3072/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. Krishnamurthy, IRS, CIT
Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73Section 8

section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, “speculative transaction” has been defined to mean a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity is settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of such commodity. However, as stated above, the assessee was not a dealer I.T.A.Nos.1336 & 3072/Mds/2014 :- 6 -: in foreign exchange

MAJESTIC EXPORTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3072/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1336 & 3072/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. Krishnamurthy, IRS, CIT
Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73Section 8

section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, “speculative transaction” has been defined to mean a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity is settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of such commodity. However, as stated above, the assessee was not a dealer I.T.A.Nos.1336 & 3072/Mds/2014 :- 6 -: in foreign exchange

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

ITA 2820/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

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 & FINANCE COMPANY LTD, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2836/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

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

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 672/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

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

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

ITA 2732/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2835, 2836 & 2820/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company V. Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain Ca & Mr. Kunal Shah, Ca & Ms. Aashna Dhila, Ca : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 :-2-:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

price say INR 9,000 million. At the end of the tenure, CIFCL pays :-5-: ITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820, 2835&2836/Chny/2024 the amount of INR 9,000 million to HSBC in lieu of USD 100 million. CIFCL would then repay the loan of USD 100 million to the foreign bank. By virtue of this forward contract, no foreign currency

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

ITA 2835/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2835, 2836 & 2820/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company V. Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain Ca & Mr. Kunal Shah, Ca & Ms. Aashna Dhila, Ca : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 :-2-:

For Respondent: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CA
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

price say INR 9,000 million. At the end of the tenure, CIFCL pays :-6-: ITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820, 2835&2836/Chny/2024 the amount of INR 9,000 million to HSBC in lieu of USD 100 million. CIFCL would then repay the loan of USD 100 million to the foreign bank. By virtue of this forward contract, no foreign currency

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-

ITA 1365/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

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

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-

ITA 1363/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

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-

ITA 1364/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

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-

ITA 1366/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

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

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

ITA 2613/CHNY/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2835, 2836 & 2820/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company V. Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain Ca & Mr. Kunal Shah, Ca & Ms. Aashna Dhila, Ca Department By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 :-2-:

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

price say INR 9,000 million. At the end of the tenure, CIFCL pays :-5-: ITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820, 2835&2836/Chny/2024 the amount of INR 9,000 million to HSBC in lieu of USD 100 million. CIFCL would then repay the loan of USD 100 million to the foreign bank. By virtue of this forward contract, no foreign currency

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. EMERALD JEWEL INDUSTRY INDIA LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1853/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1853/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. Emerald Jewel Industry India The Acit, Corporate Circle-2, Ltd., 333, 2Nd Floor, Big Bazar Street, 63-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore Coimbatore – 641 001. Pan: Aabce3430A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(e)

transferred during the course of amalgamation. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that merely because there was subsequent amalgamation with effect from 31.12.2009 that cannot be construed as if the assessee has not acquired any brand name. When the assessee acquired the brand name by making payment through banking channel before amalgamation, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 318/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

43,58,919/- under Section 271G of the Act. The penalty was, in ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 fact, levied for non-production of information regarding the expenses incurred for providing management consultancy service to CMT and TCM. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld.counsel submitted that the allegation of the Revenue is that the assessee furnished only

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1386/CHNY/2010[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

43,58,919/- under Section 271G of the Act. The penalty was, in ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 fact, levied for non-production of information regarding the expenses incurred for providing management consultancy service to CMT and TCM. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld.counsel submitted that the allegation of the Revenue is that the assessee furnished only

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

ITA 319/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

43,58,919/- under Section 271G of the Act. The penalty was, in ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 fact, levied for non-production of information regarding the expenses incurred for providing management consultancy service to CMT and TCM. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld.counsel submitted that the allegation of the Revenue is that the assessee furnished only

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 86/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

43,58,919/- under Section 271G of the Act. The penalty was, in ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 fact, levied for non-production of information regarding the expenses incurred for providing management consultancy service to CMT and TCM. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld.counsel submitted that the allegation of the Revenue is that the assessee furnished only

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

ITA 1665/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

43,58,919/- under Section 271G of the Act. The penalty was, in ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 fact, levied for non-production of information regarding the expenses incurred for providing management consultancy service to CMT and TCM. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld.counsel submitted that the allegation of the Revenue is that the assessee furnished only

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

ITA 1020/CHNY/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

43,58,919/- under Section 271G of the Act. The penalty was, in ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 fact, levied for non-production of information regarding the expenses incurred for providing management consultancy service to CMT and TCM. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld.counsel submitted that the allegation of the Revenue is that the assessee furnished only