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)

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

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

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

6. The next ground of appeal arises for consideration is with regard to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271AA and 271G of the Act. 7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. From the order of the Assessing Officer it appears that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

DOOWON AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1016/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Doowon Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No.B-19 & 20, Sipcot V. Income Tax, Industrial Park, Oragadam, Corporate Circle – 1(1), Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai - 600 034. Kancheepuram District-602 105. Pan : Aaccd 4172 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

43,259/- towards basic Customs duty. The comparable companies taken by the Transfer Pricing Officer and the DRP are established companies and they have purchased the components to the extent of 84% in India. Since the assessee-company is at inception stage, they could not pass the Customs duty to its customers. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further