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

Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment amounting to INR 16,73,97,818 pertaining to the international transaction of receipt of corporate support services: 4.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP/ TPO have erred in making an upward TP :-3-: IT(TP)A. No: 35/Chny/2021 & ITA No: 1010/Chny/2017 adjustment of INR 16,73

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

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

4. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in ACIT v. Rohini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15, found that the assessee cannot claim more than the profit computed under the provisions of the Act. If the deduction allowed under Section

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

transferred or not must be tested as on 31.3.2014 either before the AO / DRP or before us. 70. Against the above order, the assessee filed its four separate Miscellaneous Applications in MA No. 4, 7 to 9/CHNY/2025 for the A.Ys.2016- 17 to 2019-20 on the basis that the Bench had failed to consider the financial statements

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

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 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

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

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

4 I.T.A. No.1218, 765 & 615/Mds/16 mandatory to maintain separate books one for eligible 10A unit and another for non-eligible 10A unit. The assessee being Indian multinational company, eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act, therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the Principal Commissioner is not justified in applying average profit of assessee

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

4 I.T.A. No.1218, 765 & 615/Mds/16 mandatory to maintain separate books one for eligible 10A unit and another for non-eligible 10A unit. The assessee being Indian multinational company, eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act, therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the Principal Commissioner is not justified in applying average profit of assessee

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

4 I.T.A. No.1218, 765 & 615/Mds/16 mandatory to maintain separate books one for eligible 10A unit and another for non-eligible 10A unit. The assessee being Indian multinational company, eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act, therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the Principal Commissioner is not justified in applying average profit of assessee

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer in question had not taken place. It has been found by the Assessing Authority himself, in the present case, that the present Assessee M/s.Chettinad Lignite Transport Services Private Limited under an Agreement dated 16.04.2002, captioned as Lignite Transport System with M/s.ST-CMS Electric Company Private Limited, had undertaken the work of developing the said railway sidings and was operating

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer in question had not taken place. It has been found by the Assessing Authority himself, in the present case, that the present Assessee M/s.Chettinad Lignite Transport Services Private Limited under an Agreement dated 16.04.2002, captioned as Lignite Transport System with M/s.ST-CMS Electric Company Private Limited, had undertaken the work of developing the said railway sidings and was operating