HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

transfer pricing legislation, except the participation in capital of an enterprise, management of an enterprise or control of an enterprise, which can lead to the relationship between enterprise being treated as ‘associated enterprises’. What essentially follows is that clause (i) of Section 92A(2) has, at its conceptual foundation, de facto control by one of the enterprise over the other

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 proceedings under Section 92, filing of objections to draft assessment order in terms of Section 144C(2), passing

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 order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was completed after the conclusion of the search, wherein the TPO proposed TP downward adjustment of Rs.407.25 crores on the imports from MIPP. The TPO did not propose any adjustment on the receipt of share capital reported in the Form 3CEB. The assessee had filed appeal against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. ORIENT GREEN POWER COMPANY LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Transfer Pricing adjustment can be examined with regard to the transactions falling u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this case reads as under:- 3. At the outset itself, the Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the grounds of appeal wherein the legal issue has been raised, which is as under: "A. Grounds

SAINT-GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NCC 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

transfer pricing adjustment would be non-est. Consequently, the assessee would cease to be an eligible assessee as defined u/s 144C(15)(b) of the Act and therefore, the machinery provisions of Section 144C of the Act would not get triggered in the assessee’s case. In such a scenario, the assessment in the case of the assessee ought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CHENNAI vs. SAINT - GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

transfer pricing adjustment would be non-est. Consequently, the assessee would cease to be an eligible assessee as defined u/s 144C(15)(b) of the Act and therefore, the machinery provisions of Section 144C of the Act would not get triggered in the assessee’s case. In such a scenario, the assessment in the case of the assessee ought

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 order\nu/s.92CA(3) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was completed after\nthe conclusion of the search, wherein the TPO proposed TP\ndownward adjustment of Rs.407.25 crores on the imports from\nMIPP. The TPO did not propose any adjustment on the receipt of\nshare capital reported in the Form 3CEB. The assessee had filed\nappeal against

SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.71/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.88/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Dcit Private Limited Corporate Circle-2(1) (Formerly Known As Gamesa Renewable Chennai. बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Before That Known As Gamesa Wind Vs. Turbine Pvt.Ltd.) 334, Futura Tech Park, 8Th Floor, Block B Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg-6027-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld.Ar !थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sasi Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Have Identical Facts & Issues. The Appeal For Ay 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 30-10-2017 Passed By Ld.

92,000/- on payment of Royalty to Associated Enterprise ("AE") for use of Technical Know-how for manufacture of Wind operated Electric Generator as suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer, ("TPO") stating that the same pertains to the bought-out components. 3.For that the Learned Assessing Officer, based on the directions issued by theDRP erred in determining

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

92 taxmann.com 10) wherein on similar facts, the Hon’ble High Court had observed that sale of residential units by co-developer in the SEZ was not an activity of development of SEZ and had thus upheld the AO’s action disallowing the deduction u/s 80-IAB of the Act. The Ld. CIT, DR thereafter took us through the provisions

MOVATE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

92,531/-. Subsequent to the order of the TPO, the AO passed a draft assessment order on 26.09.2023 u/s.144C r.w.s 92CA (3) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as “DRP”). On perusal of the objections and after providing opportunity

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

92,814/- had been claimed as deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The AO is noted to have held that normal deduction for the revenue expenditure was allowable and therefore disallowed the weighted component of deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB), which was ascertained at Rs.387,57,96,408/-. With regard to the balance R&D expenditure of capital nature

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

92,814/- had been claimed as deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The AO is noted to have held that normal deduction for the revenue expenditure was allowable and therefore disallowed the weighted component of deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB), which was ascertained at Rs.387,57,96,408/-. With regard to the balance R&D expenditure of capital nature

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. AATHMIKA HOLDINGS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

92 of the Act or to be benchmarked against a price transacted between unrelated parties. Rather, the provisions are unambiguously clear that, the FMV is to be computed in the manner as laid down in the prescribed Rule 11UA and there is no other alternate method or valuation prescribed by the CO No.38/Chny/2025 (AY 2021-22) M/s. Aathmika Holdings

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

92 taxmann.com 10) wherein on\nsimilar facts, the Hon'ble High Court had observed that sale of residential\nunits by co-developer in the SEZ was not an activity of development of\nSEZ and had thus upheld the AO's action disallowing the deduction u/s\n80-IAB of the Act. The Ld. CIT, DR thereafter took us through the\nprovisions

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

price minus all general\nexpenses which were attributable to the sales. Therefore, it is not\nreasonable to say that unreasonably the profit was escalated. The\nITA Nos.1402 & 1663/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20)\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.\n:: 41 ::\ndifference between the two percentages of profit, i.e. about 28%\n(G.P. - N.P.) thus represented the expenditure which could be said

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1), , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 609/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hyundai Motor India V. Tax, Limited, Non Corporate Circle – 8(1), Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Chennai – 600 034. Industrial Park, Irungatukottai, Sriperumbudurtaluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602 117. [Pan: Aaach-2364-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Transfer Pricing Regulations contained in section 92, 92A to 92F of the Income :-3-: ITA. No:609/Chny/2024 Tax Act, 1961. The case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of guarantee given for AE to 0.5% of the amount guaranteed. 3.5 The Second issue is regarding the disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer has disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D @ rate of 1% of the annual average of monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

Transfer Pricing adjustment towards corporate guarantee amounting to Rs. 61,44,100/-. The AO has made TP adjustment of Rs. 61,44,100/- towards corporate guarantee fee @ 1% on total corporate guarantee outstanding at the end of the year, on the ground that corporate guarantee given by the assessee to their AEs, is an international transaction, which needs