GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

price. He argued that there is no element of transfer so as to attract\nthe provision of section 2(47) of the Act and hence there cannot be any\nlevy of tax on capital gain under section 45

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

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

45. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act shall be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT. 46. We have considered the rival submissions

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

45. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act shall be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT. 46. We have considered the rival submissions

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

45. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act shall be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT. 46. We have considered the rival submissions

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

45. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act shall be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT. 46. We have considered the rival submissions

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

45. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act shall be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT. 46. We have considered the rival submissions

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

45. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act shall be reduced while computing relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT. 46. We have considered the rival submissions

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

45 any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. "Transfer" is defined in s. 2(47) and states that "`transfer', in relation

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD., CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

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 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45,31,144 and thus a total additions of INR 65,52,97,718 was made

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 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45,31,144 and thus a total additions of INR 65,52,97,718 was made

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 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45,31,144 and thus a total additions of INR 65,52,97,718 was made

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45,31,144 and thus a total additions of INR 65,52,97,718 was made

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\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

section, therefore, brings out the distinction between a price paid\nfor a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and the rent to be paid\nperiodically to the lessor. When the interest of the lessor is paid for\nby a price, the price paid is premium or salami. But the periodical\npayments for a lease for the continuous enjoyment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

Transfer Pricing orders are tabulated below:\nAsst year Date of TP order/dat TP adjustment Remarks\nReference to TPO e (Rs. in cores)\n2011-12 01.10.2013 Order u/s. No\n92CA(3)/ adjustment\n21.01.20\n15\nTPO concluded that the Import of\nEquipment from\nMIPP is at arm's\nlength price\n2012-13 20.11.2014 Order No\nu/s. adjustment\n92CA(3)/\n08.09.20\n15\nTPO