DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

price is an 16 ITA 1172-1273-1173-1283/Chny/2025 SPL Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. estimation nevertheless, even if by a statutory authority like the stamp duty valuation authority, and such a valuation can never be elevated to the status of such a precise computation which admits no variations. The rigour of Section 50C

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

price is an 16 ITA 1172-1273-1173-1283/Chny/2025 SPL Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. estimation nevertheless, even if by a statutory authority like the stamp duty valuation authority, and such a valuation can never be elevated to the status of such a precise computation which admits no variations. The rigour of Section 50C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

price is an 16 ITA 1172-1273-1173-1283/Chny/2025 SPL Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. estimation nevertheless, even if by a statutory authority like the stamp duty valuation authority, and such a valuation can never be elevated to the status of such a precise computation which admits no variations. The rigour of Section 50C

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C.\n13) The combined value of the land and the Hotel building with\nthe facilities is well worth the Rs.365.12 Crores and the total tangible\nassets Rs.470.11 Crores as taken by the Appellant and the value of\nintangible assets at Rs.26 Crores as given by Registered valuers.\nNeither the AO or the CIT(A) have not given any reason

SARAVANAN ARUMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding\nanything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force,\nadopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the\npayment of stamp duty.]\n(3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value\nascertained under

SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly.\n15. In result, appeal of both the assessees in ITA No. 1172 & 1173/Chny/2025\nare allowed and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

price is an\nestimation nevertheless, even if by a statutory authority like the stamp\nduty valuation authority, and such a valuation can never be elevated\nto the status of such a precise computation which admits no\nvariations. The rigour of Section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and very\nthoughtfully so, to take these bonafide cases of small variations\nbetween

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

50C, the prevailing jurisprudence is that, the said deeming fiction only applies to sale of land & building and not where only leasehold rights are transferred for a finite period. In this context, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra) has clarified that, grant of perpetual lease is a permanent transfer and thus akin to sale. The ratio laid down

T.L.SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-14, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1596/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 13, (Old No. 1), V. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non-Corporate Circle -14, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Aepps-6766-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

price must be arrived at if asset is a capital asset. Computation of income charged under the heading ‘capital gains’ shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has computed the capital gain in terms of section 48 r.w.s. 50C of the Act. The computation of capital gain

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

50C, the\nprevailing jurisprudence is that, the said deeming fiction only applies to\nsale of land & building and not where only leasehold rights are transferred\nfor a finite period. In this context, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra)\nhas clarified that, grant of perpetual lease is a permanent transfer and\nthus akin to sale. The ratio laid down

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\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

50C,\nthe prevailing jurisprudence is that, the said deeming fiction only applies to\nsale of land & building and not where only leasehold rights are transferred\nfor a finite period. In this context, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra)\nhas clarified that, grant of perpetual lease is a permanent transfer and\nthus akin to sale. The ratio laid down

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.

2 5. The Assessee has reimbursed its AE on cost to cost basis in relation to Support Services received from its AE during all above referred AY’s. However, the TPO during the course of assessment, has called upon the Assessee to furnish evidence to substantiate the receipt of support services. The Assessee seem to have not furnished the required

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.

2 5. The Assessee has reimbursed its AE on cost to cost basis in relation to Support Services received from its AE during all above referred AY’s. However, the TPO during the course of assessment, has called upon the Assessee to furnish evidence to substantiate the receipt of support services. The Assessee seem to have not furnished the required

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.

2 5. The Assessee has reimbursed its AE on cost to cost basis in relation to Support Services received from its AE during all above referred AY’s. However, the TPO during the course of assessment, has called upon the Assessee to furnish evidence to substantiate the receipt of support services. The Assessee seem to have not furnished the required

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.

2 5. The Assessee has reimbursed its AE on cost to cost basis in relation to Support Services received from its AE during all above referred AY’s. However, the TPO during the course of assessment, has called upon the Assessee to furnish evidence to substantiate the receipt of support services. The Assessee seem to have not furnished the required

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.

2 5. The Assessee has reimbursed its AE on cost to cost basis in relation to Support Services received from its AE during all above referred AY’s. However, the TPO during the course of assessment, has called upon the Assessee to furnish evidence to substantiate the receipt of support services. The Assessee seem to have not furnished the required

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

2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the\ndetermination of the value of an asset or liability for the sole purpose of payment of\nstamp duty, registration fees or other similar taxes or fees shall not be regarded as\nassignment of values to individual assets or liabilities;\n23. The Section does not permit identification / value attribution

MIHO KIKUCHI,THIRUVANNAMALAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed subject to above direction and modification in the order

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1318/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Miho Kikuchi, The Principal Commissioner No.25, Chengam Road, Vs. Of Income Tax-8, Fourth Street, Chennai. Thiruvannamalai – 606 601. Pan: Bdepm 5316B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr. L. Natarajan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay, Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai -8 In Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1063189420 (1) Dated 22.03.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S.147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.03.2022. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Framed By Ao Of National Faceless Assessment Centre Vide Order Dated 27.03.2022 U/S.147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Which Are Factual, Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

Transfer Pricing officer, as the case may be] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner, - 1. the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made: 2

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the the cost. It is the realization of excess over the cost incurred of excess over the cost incurred thatonlyforms part of the profit included

PENUPETRUNI CHINNA RAO,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

50C(1) of the Act which has been held to have retrospective operation for the purpose of guideline value, the agreement of sale which took place in the previous year relevant to the AY 2013-14, only should have been considered as the date of transfer. H. The learned CIT(A) erred in endorsing the view of the AO that