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., 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. The Assessing Officer has simply initiated the penalty proceeding under Section 271G of the Act without indicating the document which was not produced by the assessee. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee’s accounts were duly audited by the statutory auditor as ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 well as internal auditors. The audited accounts were also published

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. The Assessing Officer has simply initiated the penalty proceeding under Section 271G of the Act without indicating the document which was not produced by the assessee. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee’s accounts were duly audited by the statutory auditor as ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 well as internal auditors. The audited accounts were also published

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. The Assessing Officer has simply initiated the penalty proceeding under Section 271G of the Act without indicating the document which was not produced by the assessee. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee’s accounts were duly audited by the statutory auditor as ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 well as internal auditors. The audited accounts were also published

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. The Assessing Officer has simply initiated the penalty proceeding under Section 271G of the Act without indicating the document which was not produced by the assessee. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee’s accounts were duly audited by the statutory auditor as ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 well as internal auditors. The audited accounts were also published

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. The Assessing Officer has simply initiated the penalty proceeding under Section 271G of the Act without indicating the document which was not produced by the assessee. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee’s accounts were duly audited by the statutory auditor as ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 well as internal auditors. The audited accounts were also published

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. The Assessing Officer has simply initiated the penalty proceeding under Section 271G of the Act without indicating the document which was not produced by the assessee. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee’s accounts were duly audited by the statutory auditor as ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 well as internal auditors. The audited accounts were also published

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

50% shares. However, on 16th July, 2008, Roca Investment S.L. purchased 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

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

50% shares. However, on 16th July, 2008, Roca Investment S.L. purchased 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

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3137/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.1,05,28,594/-. 4.1. The Ld. AO/TPO/ DRP have erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting the foreign AEs as the tested party and selecting the Appellant as the tested party. 4.2. The Ld. AO/TPO/DRP has erred, in laws and facts, by rejecting transaction net margin method as the most appropriate method

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 to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued by its subsidiaries aggregating

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 to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued by its subsidiaries aggregating

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 to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued by its subsidiaries aggregating

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 to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued by its subsidiaries aggregating

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

pricing of the international transaction. 18.2 The assessee also submitted a detailed note on the various services availed by them under the terms of the agreement. Further, it was also submitted before the TPO that the AE party had identified the nature of stewardship/shareholder activities in each of the above department/services and such costs was excluded and not charged back

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

pricing of the international transaction. 18.2 The assessee also submitted a detailed note on the various services availed by them under the terms of the agreement. Further, it was also submitted before the TPO that the AE party had identified the nature of stewardship/shareholder activities in each of the above department/services and such costs was excluded and not charged back

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 Prabhu Spining Mills Private 121, Adarns Plaza, Vs. Limited, 60, Feet Road, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 602. Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

section 80-IA(8) held that the average selling price by an assessee to TANGEDCO should be based on the tariff rates fixed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) for purchase of electricity generated by a windmill undertaking which during the year would have been as follows: Sl.N Name of wind Date of No. of units Tariff rate

ORCHID CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

50%, Activas 25% and the assessee 25%. [6] On these facts, the Transfer Pricing Officer was of the view that the assessee and its distribution partners (namely Northstar and Activas in this year) were associated enterprises under section

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