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

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

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, 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

price of TANGEDCO to any other high tension industrial consumers :-3-: ITA. No: 433 & 435/Chny/2025 being Rs.6.35 per unit of electricity which effectively translated into Rs.27,68,67,372/- for the whole of the year. 6. It may be noted that the assessee claimed a deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act to the tune of Rs.18

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

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

6% was the manufacturing profit, per A.O. It is true that ITA Nos.554 & 561/Chny/2023 (AY 2018-19) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 43 :: section 80IC does recognized the provisions of section 80IA. Refer, Sub-section (7) of section 80IC which prescribes as follows:— "Section 80IC(7) : The provisions contained in sub-section (5) and sub-sections (7) to (12) of section

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

6% was the manufacturing profit, per A.O. It is true that ITA Nos.554 & 561/Chny/2023 (AY 2018-19) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 43 :: section 80IC does recognized the provisions of section 80IA. Refer, Sub-section (7) of section 80IC which prescribes as follows:— "Section 80IC(7) : The provisions contained in sub-section (5) and sub-sections (7) to (12) of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

price of a product, apart from its market price, as prescribed in Section 80-IA(8) of the Act. According to us, the sale price cannot further be segregated by imputing price attributable to marketing and R&D efforts for the simple reason that there is no such provision contained in law. We agree with the Ld. AR that

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

transfer of the commodity. In other words, the transaction must be settled on a net-net basis, whereby the difference between the price prevailing on the settlement date and the contracted price is paid/ received by the parties to the contract. Given that the contracts are settled by actual delivery and not on a net-to-net basis, the same

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

transfer of the commodity. In other words, the transaction must be settled on a net-net basis, whereby the difference between the price prevailing on the settlement date and the contracted price is paid/ received by the parties to the contract. Given that the contracts are settled by actual delivery and not on a net-to-net basis, the same

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) LTU - II, CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1402/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.,\nNo.1, Sardar Patel Road,\nGuindy, Chennai-600 032.\n[PAN: AAAСА 4651 L]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8(1),\nLTU-II,\nChennai.\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1663/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8,\nChennai.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nM/s. Ashok Leyl

price minus all general\nexpenses which were attributable to the sales. Therefore, it is not\nreasonable to say that unreasonably the profit was escalated. The\nITA Nos.1402 & 1663/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20)\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.\n:: 41 ::\ndifference between the two percentages of profit, i.e. about 28%\n(G.P. - N.P.) thus represented the expenditure which could be said

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

price is paid/ received\nby the parties to the contract. Given that the contracts are settled by actual\ndelivery and not on a net-to-net basis, the same does not fall within the\nmeaning of 'speculative transaction' as mentioned in section 43(5) of the\nAct.\"\n5.11 Based on the above submission, the Id.AR prayed that the\nexpenditure

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

transfer of such assets, directly or indirectly to the assessee, was the reduction of a liability to income-tax (by claiming depreciation with reference to an enhanced cost) as required under Explanation 3 to section 43(1). 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in determining the actual cost of the second hand

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

6) -\n•\nIt was stated that the transaction was a restatement of the loan\nborrowed.\n•\nNo provision in respect of the said expense was created in the\nearlier years\n•\nPlacing reliance on the case of S. Vinodkumar Diamonds (P) Ltd\nVs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, MUM) 89 DTR 129, it was stated that there\nwas no actual delivery

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

Transfer Pricing additions\n13,43,66,276\nAdd: Disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsection 801B of the Act\n5,37,34,851\nTotal income as per assessment order\nu/s.143(3)\n1,40,87,85,237\n3.\nSubsequently, the Id.PCIT invoked jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and sought\nto revise the assessment order with respect to the allowability of royalty payments

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

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

price is paid/ received\nby the parties to the contract. Given that the contracts are settled by actual\ndelivery and not on a net-to-net basis, the same does not fall within the\nmeaning of 'speculative transaction' as mentioned in section 43(5) of the\nAct.\"\n5.11 Based on the above submission, the Id.AR prayed that the\nexpenditure

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

43[Principal 47[Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or] Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer 44[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] had been the subject matter 48 of any appeal 49[filed on or before or after