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

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

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

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

transferred to the bank/financing institution at a value lower to the realizable value c. Through factoring, neither a debt is incurred nor is money borrowed. There is only a change in the ownership of the receivable at a price lower to its realizable value d. This is also not covered by the definition of interest given under section

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

transferred to the bank/financing institution at a value lower to the realizable value c. Through factoring, neither a debt is incurred nor is money borrowed. There is only a change in the ownership of the receivable at a price lower to its realizable value d. This is also not covered by the definition of interest given under section

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

transferred to the bank/financing institution at a value lower to the realizable value c. Through factoring, neither a debt is incurred nor is money borrowed. There is only a change in the ownership of the receivable at a price lower to its realizable value d. This is also not covered by the definition of interest given under section

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

transferred to the bank/financing institution at a value lower to the realizable value c. Through factoring, neither a debt is incurred nor is money borrowed. There is only a change in the ownership of the receivable at a price lower to its realizable value d. This is also not covered by the definition of interest given under section

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

49,48,380/- 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

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

price was around ` 3 ITA Nos.27 & 28/Chny/2017 :- 30 -: lacs per acre at that point of time of the land in that area as there was increased market activities in the year 2008 and not ` 1 lacs per acre as is recorded in the sale deed dated 11.09.2008. The learned VAO has also stated that this land however could not fetch

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

price was around ` 3 ITA Nos.27 & 28/Chny/2017 :- 30 -: lacs per acre at that point of time of the land in that area as there was increased market activities in the year 2008 and not ` 1 lacs per acre as is recorded in the sale deed dated 11.09.2008. The learned VAO has also stated that this land however could not fetch

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.393/Chny/2018 & आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.89/Chny/2018 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Titan Company Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income No.3, Spicot Industrial Complex, Vs. Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. Ltu-2, [Pan: Aaact 5131A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 92C(3) of the Act proceeded to make adjustment to the inter-unit transfer of semi-finished products.. h. The Hon'ble DRP/learned AO/ TPO ought to have accepted the economic analysis performed in the TP report in support of arm's length price of Inter-unit transfer of Jewellery and watch units

NIPPON PAINT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.779/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 92C(1) of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’). 2.5 Erred on facts by comparing the Appellant with the well established companies in applying the BLT. Further, erred on facts and in law in making transfer pricing adjustment without considering suitable adjustments to account for the differences in functional profile

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. ORIENT GREEN POWER COMPANY LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

price of specified domestic transaction. The TPO, Chennai passed an order u/s.92CA(3) on 30.10.2017 disallowing Rs.4,04,49,600/-. Subsequently, the AO has completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 92CA r.w.s 144C(1) on 29.01.2018 by making following additions:- i) Downward Adjustments suggested by the TPO of Rs.4,04,49,600/-. ii) Disallowance under section 14A of Rs.22

POLARIS CONSULTING & SERVICES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Section 10A of the Act, the Ld. D.R. submitted that export turnover does not include freight, telecommunication charges, insurance expenses incurred in foreign exchange in 10 I.T.A. No.1218, 765 & 615/Mds/16 providing technical service outside India, therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly excluded the same from export turnover. 16. We have heard Shri N. Venkatraman

POLARIS SOFTWARE LAB LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Section 10A of the Act, the Ld. D.R. submitted that export turnover does not include freight, telecommunication charges, insurance expenses incurred in foreign exchange in 10 I.T.A. No.1218, 765 & 615/Mds/16 providing technical service outside India, therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly excluded the same from export turnover. 16. We have heard Shri N. Venkatraman

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. POLARIS CONSULTING & SERVICES P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Section 10A of the Act, the Ld. D.R. submitted that export turnover does not include freight, telecommunication charges, insurance expenses incurred in foreign exchange in 10 I.T.A. No.1218, 765 & 615/Mds/16 providing technical service outside India, therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly excluded the same from export turnover. 16. We have heard Shri N. Venkatraman