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 of the Act on the event of\nintroduction of a new partner. He has further submitted that even if the\namount

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

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

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45

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

3) read with section 92CA (4) making the following disallowances / additions. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14A at INR 9,34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45

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

3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').\n3 Rejection of Transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant\n3.1 The TPO erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis performed by the Appellant\nand incorrectly undertook a fresh benchmarking analysis.\n3.2. The TPO has erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis prepared by the\nAppellant without appreciating the fact that a detailed

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., 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.,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

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

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

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

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

3 SCC 549. If transfer of capital asset in section 45 of the Act includes grant of Mining Lease for any period .then obviously the "cost of acquisi- tion" of the land would include the "cost of acquisition" Of the Mining right under the lease. Undisputedly the grant of alease being a transfer of an asset there is no escape