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

48. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the assessee has failed to furnish the information in respect of international transaction under Section 92D(3) of the Act. Referring to Section 92D(3) of the Act, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submitted that every person who enters into international transaction shall keep and maintain such

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

48. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the assessee has failed to furnish the information in respect of international transaction under Section 92D(3) of the Act. Referring to Section 92D(3) of the Act, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submitted that every person who enters into international transaction shall keep and maintain such

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

48. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the assessee has failed to furnish the information in respect of international transaction under Section 92D(3) of the Act. Referring to Section 92D(3) of the Act, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submitted that every person who enters into international transaction shall keep and maintain such

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

48. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the assessee has failed to furnish the information in respect of international transaction under Section 92D(3) of the Act. Referring to Section 92D(3) of the Act, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submitted that every person who enters into international transaction shall keep and maintain such

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

48. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the assessee has failed to furnish the information in respect of international transaction under Section 92D(3) of the Act. Referring to Section 92D(3) of the Act, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submitted that every person who enters into international transaction shall keep and maintain such

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

48. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the assessee has failed to furnish the information in respect of international transaction under Section 92D(3) of the Act. Referring to Section 92D(3) of the Act, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submitted that every person who enters into international transaction shall keep and maintain such

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

Transfer Pricing Officer or Dispute Resolution Panel, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, the orders of the Assessing Officer are set aside and the Assessing Officer shall refer the matter again to the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel shall examine the agreement between the parties and other transactions

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

Transfer Pricing Officer or Dispute Resolution Panel, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, the orders of the Assessing Officer are set aside and the Assessing Officer shall refer the matter again to the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel shall examine the agreement between the parties and other transactions

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO”) , in an order made under section 92CA(3) in which the learned TPO adopted 6.31% (LIBOR of 4.41 percent plus 1.9 percent) as the arm’s length price and directed an adjustment of 4.31% (6.31 percent minus 2 percent) at INR 1,48

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO”) , in an order made under section 92CA(3) in which the learned TPO adopted 6.31% (LIBOR of 4.41 percent plus 1.9 percent) as the arm’s length price and directed an adjustment of 4.31% (6.31 percent minus 2 percent) at INR 1,48

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO”) , in an order made under section 92CA(3) in which the learned TPO adopted 6.31% (LIBOR of 4.41 percent plus 1.9 percent) as the arm’s length price and directed an adjustment of 4.31% (6.31 percent minus 2 percent) at INR 1,48

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO”) , in an order made under section 92CA(3) in which the learned TPO adopted 6.31% (LIBOR of 4.41 percent plus 1.9 percent) as the arm’s length price and directed an adjustment of 4.31% (6.31 percent minus 2 percent) at INR 1,48

DCIT, PONDICHERRY vs. TWEEZERMAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD., PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Transfer Pricing Officer determined arithmetic mean of comparables at 38.40%. Accordingly, he determined the profit on sale made to Associate Enterprise at `11,39,48,865/- as against the profit declared by the assessee at `15,94,74,284/-. The Assessing Officer, in fact, allowed deduction under Section

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

48,591 Total 39,08,95,979 The TPO contended that no technology is required for development of wind-farm, erection and commissioning activities. 3.3 Further, the TPO questioned why imported bought- out components should not be reduced from turnover and applied the rate of royalty on net turnover. In this regard, the TPO mentioned that under the provisions

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

48,591 Total 39,08,95,979 The TPO contended that no technology is required for development of wind-farm, erection and commissioning activities. 3.3 Further, the TPO questioned why imported bought- out components should not be reduced from turnover and applied the rate of royalty on net turnover. In this regard, the TPO mentioned that under the provisions

PANASONIC CORPORATION,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

48,380/- during the assessment year 2015-16. Therefore, according to the Ld. 5 I.T.A. No.1483/Chny/17 representative, it cannot be assessed for the year under consideration. 11. On the contrary, Shri M. Sreenivasa Rao, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that M/s Panasonic Appliances India Co. Ltd. disclosed in Form 3CEB the details of payment of royalty to the assessee. Therefore

MR. RAJENDERA KUMAR GOLLAPUDI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

48. Mode of computation.—The income chargeable under the head 'Capital gains' shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result ITA No. 2322/Mds/2016. :- 4 -: of the result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely :— (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer

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