K.G. DENIM LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, TP-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1718/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 K G Denim Limited, Dcit, 1, Thenthirumalai, V. Tp-2(1), Jadayampalayam B.O., Chennai. Dhoddabavi, Coimbatore – 641 302. [Pan: Aaack-7940-C] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

Section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer to examine the domestic transfer pricing transactions reported for the assessment year under consideration. During the TP proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer after considering the contentions of the assessee, vide order dated 19.01.2023 proposed adjustment of Rs.12,47

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 143 of the Act. Further, as noted above, the CIT(A) has examined the merits of the matter and after taking note of the facts granted relief to the assessee to the extent indicated therein. Thus, for the above reasons, we find that the revenue has not made out any case for interference of the order passed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

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

Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

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

Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

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

Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

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

Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

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

Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

47% of the shares from EID Parry Limited. Accordingly, Roca Investment S.L. became 97% shareholder in the assessee- company. The assessee-company claims that it is a distributor for Roca products. Referring to the agreement between Roca Sanitaria S.A. Spain and the assessee, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has to purchase the goods at the price and condition

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PARRYWARE ROCA PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

47% of the shares from EID Parry Limited. Accordingly, Roca Investment S.L. became 97% shareholder in the assessee- company. The assessee-company claims that it is a distributor for Roca products. Referring to the agreement between Roca Sanitaria S.A. Spain and the assessee, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has to purchase the goods at the price and condition

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

47,389/- for assessment year 2012-13. The ld. Assessing Officer after going through the agreement entered into by the assessee with the customer in this respect and scope of work agreed to perform by the assessee to its customers, was of the opinion that it does not involve any application of technology transferred to the assessee

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

47,389/- for assessment year 2012-13. The ld. Assessing Officer after going through the agreement entered into by the assessee with the customer in this respect and scope of work agreed to perform by the assessee to its customers, was of the opinion that it does not involve any application of technology transferred to the assessee

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 14A of the Act has to be applied, it cannot exceed the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment OFCD Interest: 15. The Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts, in holding that the transactions between the appellant and its AE were not at arm’s length and in upholding the adjustment

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 14A of the Act has to be applied, it cannot exceed the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment OFCD Interest: 15. The Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts, in holding that the transactions between the appellant and its AE were not at arm’s length and in upholding the adjustment

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 14A of the Act has to be applied, it cannot exceed the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment OFCD Interest: 15. The Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts, in holding that the transactions between the appellant and its AE were not at arm’s length and in upholding the adjustment

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 14A of the Act has to be applied, it cannot exceed the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment OFCD Interest: 15. The Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts, in holding that the transactions between the appellant and its AE were not at arm’s length and in upholding the adjustment

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

section, therefore, brings out the distinction between a price paid for a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and the rent to be paid periodically to the lessor. When the interest of the lessor is parted with for a price, the price paid is premium or salami. But the periodical payments made for the continuous enjoyment

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

47) and states that \"`transfer', in relation to a capital asset\nincludes the sale, exchange or relinquishment of an asset or the\nextinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof\nunder any law\". Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of\nimmovable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made

DCIT, NCC - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KEEZHAYUR SOWRIRAJAN SREENIVASAN,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) further observed that except making certain allegations on the MOU regarding non-registration of document and absence of witnesses, the Assessing Officer has failed to make out a case that transaction between the assessee and builder is sham transaction and has arranged to claim benefit of deduction