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

80-IB of the Act while computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The judgment of ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT (2008) 304 ITR 319 would cover the issue. Accordingly, the orders of lower

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

80-IB of the Act while computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The judgment of ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT (2008) 304 ITR 319 would cover the issue. Accordingly, the orders of lower

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

80-IB of the Act while computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The judgment of ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT (2008) 304 ITR 319 would cover the issue. Accordingly, the orders of lower

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

80-IB of the Act while computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The judgment of ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT (2008) 304 ITR 319 would cover the issue. Accordingly, the orders of lower

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

80-IB of the Act while computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The judgment of ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT (2008) 304 ITR 319 would cover the issue. Accordingly, the orders of lower

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

80-IB of the Act while computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The judgment of ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 Madras High Court in SCM Creations v. ACIT (2008) 304 ITR 319 would cover the issue. Accordingly, the orders of lower

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPUR vs. SRI SHANMUGAVEL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA.” 18. As regards the above, the Ld.AR submitted that the explanation to section 80-IA(8) provides that for the purposes of section 80-IA(8), the market value of any goods and services would mean either clause (i) which states the price

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

80-IA(8) of the Act, \"market value\" in relation\nto any goods or services, means (a) the price that such goods or services would\nordinarily fetch in the open market; or (b) the arm's length price as defined in clause\n(ii) of section 92F,where the transfer

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 of goods are recorded at the market value of goods. The relevant extracts of the provision of section 80- IA(8) of the Act is as follows: …. 5.12 From the above it is clear that, the sale price

RENAULT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 92C may not only be legally impermissible but will lend itself to arbitrariness. What is then needed is a clear statutory scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance. 76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa

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

price at which the goods manufactured were sold to the customers viz., based on the invoices raised upon the third parties. According to us therefore, this basis of revenue recognition followed by the assessee is in line with Section 80-IC(6) read with Section 80-IA(8) of the Act. We therefore see no reason to tinker with

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

price at which the goods manufactured were sold to the customers viz., based on the invoices raised upon the third parties. According to us therefore, this basis of revenue recognition followed by the assessee is in line with Section 80-IC(6) read with Section 80-IA(8) of the Act. We therefore see no reason to tinker with

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 of goods are recorded at the market\nvalue of goods. The relevant extracts of the provision of section 80-\nIA(8) of the Act is as follows:\n5.12 From the above it is clear that, the sale price

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

price. 14. Referring to Section 80-IA(8) of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that the profit of the eligible business shall be computed as if the power generated by captive power plant was transferred

DOSHI ESTATES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3463/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Doshi Estates, The Assistant Commissioner Of 3H, Century Plaza, V. Income Tax, 560, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Non-Corporate Circle – 3, Chennai - 600 018. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aagfd 4592 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transferred at the rate of guideline value. According to the Ld. D.R., the profit on sale of land was also included as profit from housing project. Moreover, the exorbitant profit shown by the assessee for claiming deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act clearly suggests that there was a devise adopted by the partnership firm along with the owners

DOSHI ESTATES,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3463/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Doshi Estates, The Assistant Commissioner Of 3H, Century Plaza, V. Income Tax, 560, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Non-Corporate Circle – 3, Chennai - 600 018. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aagfd 4592 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transferred at the rate of guideline value. According to the Ld. D.R., the profit on sale of land was also included as profit from housing project. Moreover, the exorbitant profit shown by the assessee for claiming deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act clearly suggests that there was a devise adopted by the partnership firm along with the owners

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

transfer pricing regulation as per which adjustment on account of any international transaction is required to be made as per the method prescribed. The learned CIT (DR) pointed out that the TPO in respect of the nine services not availed by the Assessee has treated the payment as nil since no independent party would make any payment for services

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

transfer pricing regulation as per which adjustment on account of any international transaction is required to be made as per the method prescribed. The learned CIT (DR) pointed out that the TPO in respect of the nine services not availed by the Assessee has treated the payment as nil since no independent party would make any payment for services

THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2663/Chny/2025 धििाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2021-22

transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm's length pricing