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)

transfer of allotment of loom hours, on the question as to whether it is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure, the Apex Court pointed out that a payment may be a revenue payment from the point of view of the payer and a capital payment from the point of view of the receiver and vice versa. Thus whether

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)

transfer of allotment of loom hours, on the question as to whether it is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure, the Apex Court pointed out that a payment may be a revenue payment from the point of view of the payer and a capital payment from the point of view of the receiver and vice versa. Thus whether

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)

transfer of allotment of loom hours, on the question as to whether it is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure, the Apex Court pointed out that a payment may be a revenue payment from the point of view of the payer and a capital payment from the point of view of the receiver and vice versa. Thus whether

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)

transfer of allotment of loom hours, on the question as to whether it is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure, the Apex Court pointed out that a payment may be a revenue payment from the point of view of the payer and a capital payment from the point of view of the receiver and vice versa. Thus whether

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)

transfer of allotment of loom hours, on the question as to whether it is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure, the Apex Court pointed out that a payment may be a revenue payment from the point of view of the payer and a capital payment from the point of view of the receiver and vice versa. Thus whether

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)

transfer of allotment of loom hours, on the question as to whether it is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure, the Apex Court pointed out that a payment may be a revenue payment from the point of view of the payer and a capital payment from the point of view of the receiver and vice versa. Thus whether

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)

transfer of allotment of loom hours, on the question as to whether it is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure, the Apex Court pointed out that a payment may be a revenue payment from the point of view of the payer and a capital payment from the point of view of the receiver and vice versa. Thus whether

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)

transfer of allotment of loom hours, on the question as to whether it is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure, the Apex Court pointed out that a payment may be a revenue payment from the point of view of the payer and a capital payment from the point of view of the receiver and vice versa. Thus whether

INDUSTRIAS DEL RECAMBIO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.530/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Transfer Pricing Officer. The Ld.counsel submitted that the matter may be remitted back for reconsideration. 5. With regard to corporate taxation, the Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has raised issues in relation to disallowance made under Section 14A, 43B

THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

43B which is applicable for computing income under the head 'Profits & Gains of Business' cannot be imported into the computation mechanism set out in Explanation (1) to Section 115JB of the Act. Rather, the AO is required to ascertain whether the impugned provision can be added back or not, under any of the specified clauses set out in Explanation

HOWDEN SOLYVENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Transfer Pricing Officer-IV, Chennai (TPO) vide order dated 27-01-2014. Incorporating the proposed adjustment, draft assessment order was passed by Ld. AO on 25-02-2014 which was subjected to further objections before Ld. DRP. Subsequently, final assessment order was passed by Ld. AO pursuant to the directions of Ld. DRP which is in further appeal before

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing controversy. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 46. We may also add that ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is general in nature and it does not call for any specific adjudication. Tax withholding obligation from interest payments to Mauritian entities 47. In ground no. 3.1, the assessee is aggrieved

NVH INDIA AUTO PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2773/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nvh India Auto Parts Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income-Tax, B-68, Sipcot Industrial Park, Corporate Circle -4(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbadur Nungambakkam, Taluk, Kancheepuram – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaccn-2857-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

Transfer Pricing documentation maintained by the appellant and not applying multiple year data for comparable companies while determining arm’s length price. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that, the TPO has erred in rejecting TP documentation maintained by the appellant without assigning any valid reasons. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Transfer Pricing Officer 2.1 (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) / the TPO) erred in law and on facts in making adjustment of INR 128,58,880/- in respect of international transactions of the Appellant u/s 92CA(3) read with section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The CIT(A) /TPO ought to have appreciated that