SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE - JAO - ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE, 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

section 50B of the Act ought to be accepted to be at arms length. 25. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue’s ground No.2 of the appeal. ITA No.2958/Chny/2024 – Ground No.4 ITA No.2959/Chny/2024 – Ground No.3 Transfer Pricing – Attribution of Mark-up on recovery of expenses 26. The Assessee incurred certain expenditure

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE - JAO - ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE, 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

section 50B of the Act ought to be accepted to be at arms length. 25. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue’s ground No.2 of the appeal. ITA No.2958/Chny/2024 – Ground No.4 ITA No.2959/Chny/2024 – Ground No.3 Transfer Pricing – Attribution of Mark-up on recovery of expenses 26. The Assessee incurred certain expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1),CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

section 50B of the Act ought to be accepted to be at arms length. 25. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue’s ground No.2 of the appeal. ITA No.2958/Chny/2024 – Ground No.4 ITA No.2959/Chny/2024 – Ground No.3 Transfer Pricing – Attribution of Mark-up on recovery of expenses 26. The Assessee incurred certain expenditure

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE, 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

section 50B of the Act ought to be accepted to be at arms length. 25. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue’s ground No.2 of the appeal. ITA No.2958/Chny/2024 – Ground No.4 ITA No.2959/Chny/2024 – Ground No.3 Transfer Pricing – Attribution of Mark-up on recovery of expenses 26. The Assessee incurred certain expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1),CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

section 50B of the Act ought to be accepted to be at arms length. 25. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue’s ground No.2 of the appeal. ITA No.2958/Chny/2024 – Ground No.4 ITA No.2959/Chny/2024 – Ground No.3 Transfer Pricing – Attribution of Mark-up on recovery of expenses 26. The Assessee incurred certain expenditure

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

50B of the Act relating to slump sale were also not\napplicable to the facts of the case, inasmuch as the conversion was not in the\nnature of a sale but was a statutory reorganisation expressly contemplated\nunder section 47(xiv) of the Act.\n64. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that there is no dispute with regard to\nthe fact

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE, 3(1), CHENNAI

1) of the Act and was selected for scrutiny\nassessment.\n:-3-:\nITA. Nos:2754 to 2757/Chny/2024,\nITA. Nos:2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 &\nSA No.:22/Chny/2025\n3. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer\n('TPO') and the Assessing Officer ('AO') made certain adjustments /\ndisallowances to the assessee's income. Against the draft assessment order of\nthe AO, the assessee

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

50B. Hence without transferring land and building an undertaking cannot be transferred. This shows that there is no separate undertaking called “CCP Division” but only an activity existed. In this case, as only a business activity has been transferred, it is to be treated as business profit u/s 28(iv). In view of the above, the amount of Rs.380

M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1 (SC)\n(xi)\nCinestann Entertainment (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2019) 200 TTJ (Del) 459\n: (2019) 180 DTR (Del)(Trib) 65 : (2019) 177 ITD 809 (Del)\n(xii)\nDy. CIT vs. Pali Fabrics (P) Ltd. (2019) 110 taxmann.com 310\n(Mumbai)\n(xiii) Asstt. CIT vs. Subodh Menon (2019) 198 TTJ (Mumbai) 79 : (2019)\n174 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

Section\nITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16)\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.\n:: 23 ::\n2(42C) was not fulfilled. For arriving at such a conclusion, the AO referred\nto Clause (3) of the agreement, which read as under:-\n\"3. PURCHASE PRICE:\n3. 1. The purchase price/consideration (\"Purchase Price\") payable by the\nBuyer to the Seller, for the transfer and sale

T.A.TAYLOR PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. T.A. Taylor Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.10/5, Royal Enclave, Income Tax, Besant Avenue Road, Corporate Circle 3(1) Adyar, Chennai. Chennai 600 020. [Pan Aaact 4165G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

price. The foregoing includes any payment made in respect of any claim (i) for any breach of this agreement (including, for the avoidance of doubt, a breach of a seller’s warranty) or any agreement entered into pursuant thereto or (ii) pursuant to an indemnity under this agreement) Conditions regarding escrow account as it appears at clause

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PRUDENTIAL SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITOOR

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2298/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Prudential Sugar Corporation Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Ltu, Circle -1, Prudential Nagar, Chennai. Koppedu Post, Nindra, Mandal – 517 587. [Pan:Aaacp-4338-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

50B of the Act, the consideration received for slump sale was Rs.1,30,15,59,570/- and net worth of undertaking was determined at Rs.77,68,31,171/-. :-3-: ITA. No.:2298/Chny/2024 4. The assessee entered into business transfer agreement with the buyer on 04.04.2015. During the same time i.e. in 2014, the assessee had purchased shares of two closely

PROFILE GEARS & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.286/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

50B. Proceedings u/s.263 was initiated and the CIT-III vide order in C.No.3033/12/III/2010-11 dated 07.03.2011 directed the Assessing Officer to set aside the original assessment order and pas a fresh order in accordance with law. In order to complete the assessment proceedings u/s.263 a notice u/s.143(2) was issued. During the course of assessment, when M/s. SRP Tools

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , SALEM vs. M/S AVR SWARNAMAHAL JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

price which is actually paid the time of maturity, will continue to be subject to tax deduction at source under Section 193 of the Income Tax Act. The subsequent Circular No.4/2004 dated 13.05.2004 clarified that the tax would be deducted at source u/s 193 or Sec.195, as the case may be, only at the time of redemption of such bonds

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , SALEM vs. M/S AVR SWARNAMAHAL JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

price which is actually paid the time of maturity, will continue to be subject to tax deduction at source under Section 193 of the Income Tax Act. The subsequent Circular No.4/2004 dated 13.05.2004 clarified that the tax would be deducted at source u/s 193 or Sec.195, as the case may be, only at the time of redemption of such bonds

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , SALEM vs. M/S AVR SWARNAMAHAL JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

price which is actually paid the time of maturity, will continue to be subject to tax deduction at source under Section 193 of the Income Tax Act. The subsequent Circular No.4/2004 dated 13.05.2004 clarified that the tax would be deducted at source u/s 193 or Sec.195, as the case may be, only at the time of redemption of such bonds

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business