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, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

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, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

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, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

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, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

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, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

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

73,61,893. The assessee claimed a Tax deducted at source (“TDS”) credit of Rs. 77,93,486 and accordingly claimed a refund of Rs. 4,31,593. A survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee on July 02, 2010. During the survey, original agreements relating to a financial transaction with (“SICCL”) viz, Facility agreement dated December

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

73,61,893. The assessee claimed a Tax deducted at source (“TDS”) credit of Rs. 77,93,486 and accordingly claimed a refund of Rs. 4,31,593. A survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee on July 02, 2010. During the survey, original agreements relating to a financial transaction with (“SICCL”) viz, Facility agreement dated December

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

73,61,893. The assessee claimed a Tax deducted at source (“TDS”) credit of Rs. 77,93,486 and accordingly claimed a refund of Rs. 4,31,593. A survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee on July 02, 2010. During the survey, original agreements relating to a financial transaction with (“SICCL”) viz, Facility agreement dated December

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

73,61,893. The assessee claimed a Tax deducted at source (“TDS”) credit of Rs. 77,93,486 and accordingly claimed a refund of Rs. 4,31,593. A survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee on July 02, 2010. During the survey, original agreements relating to a financial transaction with (“SICCL”) viz, Facility agreement dated December

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

73,734/- at source and the same was also reflected in Form 26AS. However, according to the Ld. representative, the Assessing Officer has not given credit to the tax deducted. 8. We heard Shri M. Sreenivasa Rao also. If the tax was deducted at source in respect of income of ₹7,14,097/- for the year 4 I.T.A. No.1483/Chny/17 under

K.P.R.MILL LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1915/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

transfer pricing is also apparent in r. 7 of I T Rules, 1962 provided for determining the income from agricultural produces consumed by the agriculturist-assessee in his business as raw material. The rule provides that in the case' of income which is partially agricultural income and partially income chargeable as business income in determining that part which is chargeable

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1010/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Eaton Power Quality Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Pondicherry Circle, Puducherry 605 111, Pondicherry. Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 35/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Eaton Power Quality Private The Assessing Officer, Limited, V. National E-Assessment Centre, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Delhi. Puducherry 605 111, Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishal Kalra, Advocate : Shri. S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

section 92CA(3) of the Act is barred by limitation, bad in law, void ab initio and thus, liable to be quashed . Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment amounting to INR 16,73

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

transfer pricing orders, approx. 27% of value of imports was considered for downward adjustment. Even if the TPO orders were to be accepted, such profits would amount to Rs.1120.55 crores out of total imports of Rs.4150.20 crores only, whereas the total additions proposed in the case of assessee and RK exceed this conjectured profit. Without prejudice, the entire share capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

transfer pricing orders, approx. 27% of value\nof imports was considered for downward adjustment. Even\nif the TPO orders were to be accepted, such profits would\namount to Rs.1120.55 crores out of total imports of\nRs.4150.20 crores only, whereas the total additions\nproposed in the case of assessee and RK exceed this\nconjectured profit. Without prejudice, the entire share\ncapital

DURR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

73,193/- for overcharging of R & D fees and management fees by the Associated Enterprise, for assessment year 2009-2010. When the matter reached ld. DRP, for assessment year 5. 2009-2010, the ld. DRP confirmed the order of the ld. TPO in so far as it related to rejection of TNMM adopted by the assessee and rejection