ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

Transfer pricing documentation\nwithout providing any specific reasons for rejecting the same and without appreciating\nthe fact that they are functionally comparable\n5. TPO's comparable companies to be rejected\n5.1 The TPO has erred in conducting a fresh benchmarking study and selecting fresh\ncomparable companies (Elecon EPC Projects Ltd. [Merged], Jost'S Engineering Co.\nLtd., McNally Bharat Engg

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

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

Transfer pricing documentation\nwithout providing any specific reasons for rejecting the same and without appreciating\nthe fact that they are functionally comparable\n5. TPO's comparable companies to be rejected\n5.1 The TPO has erred in conducting a fresh benchmarking study and selecting fresh\ncomparable companies (Elecon EPC Projects Ltd. [Merged], Jost'S Engineering Co.\nLtd., McNally Bharat Engg

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of guarantee given for AE to at 0.5% of the amount guaranteed. 2. The next issue is regarding disallowance under Section 14A. For this Assessment Year, the amended provisions of Rule 8D, with effect from 2nd June 2016 will be applicable and the disallowance should be restricted to 1% of the average investment which

THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2663/Chny/2025 धििाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2021-22

Section 43B(b), is allowable as a deduction if actually paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1). The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the payments were made within the prescribed time under the Income- tax Act and are therefore fully allowable.” 2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged

SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by applying Rule 8D. 3.2 The AO / DRP ought to have appreciated that the appellant had earned a dividend income of Rs.3,23,96, 073 /- and had disallowed an amount of Rs.17,67,713/- as expenditure to earn the exempt income. 3.3 The AO has not expressed his satisfaction

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIAN ADDITIVES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.9, 10 & 11/Chny/2018 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

transfer pricing order of the TPO, the A.O passed draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act on 16.03.2015 and proposed TP adjustment as suggested by the TPO. The assessee vide letter dated 15.04.2015 informed the A.O that the assessee wish to prefer an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the draft assessment order. Therefore

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIAN ADDITIVES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.9, 10 & 11/Chny/2018 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

transfer pricing order of the TPO, the A.O passed draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act on 16.03.2015 and proposed TP adjustment as suggested by the TPO. The assessee vide letter dated 15.04.2015 informed the A.O that the assessee wish to prefer an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the draft assessment order. Therefore

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIAN ADDITIVES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.9, 10 & 11/Chny/2018 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

transfer pricing order of the TPO, the A.O passed draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act on 16.03.2015 and proposed TP adjustment as suggested by the TPO. The assessee vide letter dated 15.04.2015 informed the A.O that the assessee wish to prefer an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the draft assessment order. Therefore

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIAN ADDITIVES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.9, 10 & 11/Chny/2018 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

transfer pricing order of the TPO, the A.O passed draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act on 16.03.2015 and proposed TP adjustment as suggested by the TPO. The assessee vide letter dated 15.04.2015 informed the A.O that the assessee wish to prefer an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the draft assessment order. Therefore

M/S. GRT JEWELLERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

Price (ALP) of Specified Domestic Transactions of the assessee u/s. 92CA of the Act. The TPO, vide their order dated 29.01.2023, has proposed downward adjustment of Rs.1,07,28,724/-, in respect of transactions of inter-unit :-8-: ITA. No: 113/Chny/2024 transfer of power generated by Wind Energy Generators. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order u/s. 144C

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3318/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. A B Mauri India Private Ltd, Income Tax, Plot No.218 & 219 Bommasandra Corporate Circle 1(1) Jigani Link Road, Rajapura Hobli, Chennai 600 034. Jigani, Anekal Taluk. Bengaluru 560 105. [Pan:Aaeca 9923H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S P Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25 .11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

43B of the Act and as such a differential treatment cannot be adopted for the same item of deduction. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Industrial Security & Intelligence India Private Limited, TCA No. 858 and 586 of 2015 wherein it has been categorically held that no disallowance

SUNTEC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm’s length price of international transaction undertaken by the assessee with its AE. The TPO passed an order u/s.92CA of the Act on 23.10.2023 wherein, he proposed downward adjustment of Rs.1,42,01,590/- being the arm’s length price of the salary paid to global sales personnel. The reasoning

PONNI SUGARS (ERODE) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LTU,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 23/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Esvin House, No.13, Vs. Of Income Tax, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Circle-1, Ltu, Perungudi, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan: Aaccp 2779A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.R. Suresh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

Section 14A read with Rule 8D held in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR0081 (2010) (BOM) and as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin (2017) 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC)? 5. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was correct in coming toa conclusion that there is a necessity for the Appellant to make

DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

pricing in ASI's contract with its customer in addition to table 1. Designation Monthly Rate Project Manager $ 8,800 Project Leader $ 8,000 Senior Software Engineer $ 8,000 Software Engineer $ 6,400 :-8-: ITA. Nos: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 39, 40, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 Designation Monthly Rate Business Analyst $ 10,200 Technical Analyst $ 9,520 Coordinator $ 10,200 EI-Architect

M/S ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CORPORATE RANGE - 1 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

pricing in ASI's contract with its customer in addition to table 1. Designation Monthly Rate Project Manager $ 8,800 Project Leader $ 8,000 Senior Software Engineer $ 8,000 Software Engineer $ 6,400 :-8-: ITA. Nos: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 39, 40, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 Designation Monthly Rate Business Analyst $ 10,200 Technical Analyst $ 9,520 Coordinator $ 10,200 EI-Architect

M/S ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CORPORATE RANGE - 1 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

pricing in ASI's contract with its customer in addition to table 1. Designation Monthly Rate Project Manager $ 8,800 Project Leader $ 8,000 Senior Software Engineer $ 8,000 Software Engineer $ 6,400 :-8-: ITA. Nos: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 39, 40, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 Designation Monthly Rate Business Analyst $ 10,200 Technical Analyst $ 9,520 Coordinator $ 10,200 EI-Architect

DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

pricing in ASI's contract with its customer in addition to table 1. Designation Monthly Rate Project Manager $ 8,800 Project Leader $ 8,000 Senior Software Engineer $ 8,000 Software Engineer $ 6,400 :-8-: ITA. Nos: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 39, 40, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 Designation Monthly Rate Business Analyst $ 10,200 Technical Analyst $ 9,520 Coordinator $ 10,200 EI-Architect