RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

price or payment in kind or adjustment towards debt or for monetary\nconsideration. That the issue of ownership and possession nowhere\nform part of the provision and concept of transfer is alien to it.\n7.\nThe CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note of judgment in CIT vs\nDr.Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (1995 211 ITR 804 (Bom) wherein

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

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

transfer of electricity to be\nRs.10,69,94,336/- which in effect lead to the section 80-IA claim of the assessee\nbeing reduced by Rs.7,71,64,134/- (Rs.18,41,58,470 less Rs.10,69,94,336).\n7. Aggrieved, the said issue was raised in appeal before the first appellate\nauthority, i.e., the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S TAMILNADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section, clause by clause, phrase\nby phrase and word by word. .... Thus significance of 'appointment date'\nis with respect to the deadline by which the SBN would seize to be the\nliability of the RBI (issuer) to even exchange it with valid currency or its\nworth. In other words, the SBN seized to be a valid tender from the\nmidnight

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] 55[(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.] (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

M/S. BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall\nhave the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.]\n55[(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years\nfrom the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was\npassed.]\n(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

69,40,86,511/, while the company has taken a benefit of Rs. 360,05,58,183/. The remaining claim of 80IC i.e. Rs. 290,64,71,673/- is to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee company." The assessee is noted to have submitted its reply on 19.04.2021 5.2 giving a note

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

69,40,86,511/, while the company has taken a benefit of Rs. 360,05,58,183/. The remaining claim of 80IC i.e. Rs. 290,64,71,673/- is to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee company." The assessee is noted to have submitted its reply on 19.04.2021 5.2 giving a note

COASTAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2305/Chny/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Coastal Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 5, Buhari Buildings, Moores Road, Income Tax, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006. Company Circle I(3), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacc4160A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

section 154 of the Act, which specifically seeking the error in the original assessment by furnishing revised arm’s length price, the detailed computation is reproduced as under: Name of Rate Qty Price before Discount Price after Index Price Range Conclusion Vessel before discount discount discount Coastal 130 69

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Section 132(4A) r.w.s 292C\nof IT Act provides for a presumption that (i)that such books of account, other\ndocuments, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing\nbelong or belongs to such person & the onus is on the assessee to furnish\nevidence or explanations to rebut the same.\n3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Section 132(4A) r.w.s 292C\nof IT Act provides for a presumption that (i)that such books of account, other\ndocuments, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing\nbelong or belongs to such person & the onus is on the assessee to furnish\nevidence or explanations to rebut the same.\n3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

Section 132(4A) r.w.s 292C\nof IT Act provides for a presumption that (i)that such books of account, other\ndocuments, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing\nbelong or belongs to such person & the onus is on the assessee to furnish\nevidence or explanations to rebut the same.\n3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

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

section, therefore, brings out the distinction between a price paid\nfor a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and the rent to be paid\nperiodically to the lessor. When the interest of the lessor is paid for\nby a price, the price paid is premium or salami. But the periodical\npayments for a lease for the continuous enjoyment

PURANI HOSPITAL SUPPLIES PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 489/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

transfer or receive specified bank notes up to appointed date and section 2(a) defines appointed date as 31st December, 2016. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has accounted sales made in cash before demonetization period and paid relevant taxes. However, the Assessing Officer made towards cash collection from very same sales after demonetization period which amounts to double

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

69,95,867/- iii. TOTAL LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN: Rs.2,43,68,627/- 3.8 Against the above working, the assessee has computed the long term capital gain/ loss by adopting the guideline value of the properties received by the assessee in exchange as the cost of acquisition. This is against the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which stipulate

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) LTU - II, CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1402/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.,\nNo.1, Sardar Patel Road,\nGuindy, Chennai-600 032.\n[PAN: AAAСА 4651 L]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8(1),\nLTU-II,\nChennai.\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1663/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8,\nChennai.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nM/s. Ashok Leyl

transfer pricing provisions. Accordingly, the first plea of the assessee is\nhereby rejected.\n5.3 The next issue now to be adjudicated is the ALP value of the\nguarantee commission. In this regard, the Ld. AR has relied on the quote\nprovided by Bank(s) in which they have proposed to extend bank\nguarantee at 0.325% and has urged that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

transfer pricing, since it does not have any bearing on profits, income, losses or assets of the assessee; 2.3. The CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have appreciated that, the corporate guarantees have been provided by the appellant as a stewardship /shareholder activity and not a business transaction that needs to be ITA Nos.1402 & 1663/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) M/s. Ashok Leyland

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO on the directions issued by the Ld. DRP erred in analyzing the transaction separately by inappropriate application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method without furnishing details of price charged in any comparable uncontrolled transaction

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO on the directions issued by the Ld. DRP erred in analyzing the transaction separately by inappropriate application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method without furnishing details of price charged in any comparable uncontrolled transaction