PHILIPS FOODS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,TUTICORIN vs. PCIT-1, MADURAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 640/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Philips Foods India Private Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. C-75 / 76, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Madathoor, Tuticorin - 628008 [Pan: Aabcp7916Q] Madurai-1 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Ashik Sha, Ca, Mr.Vinay Jain Ca, Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051684572(1) Dated 30.03.2023 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Pcit" For The

92A to 92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The return of income was selected for assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and a corresponding reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') under Section 92CA of the Act. Accordingly several notices under section 92CA(2

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company. [12] In order to successfully invoke the provisions of Section 144C, thus, two basic conditions are required to be fulfilled: - the assessee is an eligible assessee [i.e. (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to the income or loss in the returned

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing legislation. 33. Ironically, however, there can never be a comparable controlled price input for this kind of a transaction, because, the moment use of an intangible like this is involved, the entities entering into the transactions will become AEs under section 92A(2

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing legislation. 33. Ironically, however, there can never be a comparable controlled price input for this kind of a transaction, because, the moment use of an intangible like this is involved, the entities entering into the transactions will become AEs under section 92A(2

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing legislation. 33. Ironically, however, there can never be a comparable controlled price input for this kind of a transaction, because, the moment use of an intangible like this is involved, the entities entering into the transactions will become AEs under section 92A(2

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing legislation. 33. Ironically, however, there can never be a comparable controlled price input for this kind of a transaction, because, the moment use of an intangible like this is involved, the entities entering into the transactions will become AEs under section 92A(2

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

transfer pricing legislation. 33. Ironically, however, there can never be a comparable controlled price input for this kind of a transaction, because, the moment use of an intangible like this is involved, the entities entering into the transactions will become AEs under section 92A(2

SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

transfer pricing provisions is that there should be a transaction between two or more AEs in terms of section 92A(1) and 92A(2

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

transfer pricing provisions is that there should be a transaction between two or more AEs in terms of section 92A(1) and 92A(2

BANCA SELLA S.P.A. CHENNAI BRANCH (IT DIVISION),CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

transfer pricing provisions is that there should be a transaction between two or more AEs in terms of section 92A(1) and 92A(2

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

transfer pricing as provided in Indian Income-tax Act. Section 92B of the Act defines “international transaction”. “Associated Enterprise” is defined in Section 92A of the Act. Rule 10B of Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides most appropriate method for determination of arm's length price. Rule 10B(1)(e) provides method for determination of arm's length price by adopting

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

transfer pricing as provided in Indian Income-tax Act. Section 92B of the Act defines “international transaction”. “Associated Enterprise” is defined in Section 92A of the Act. Rule 10B of Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides most appropriate method for determination of arm's length price. Rule 10B(1)(e) provides method for determination of arm's length price by adopting

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

transfer pricing as provided in Indian Income-tax Act. Section 92B of the Act defines “international transaction”. “Associated Enterprise” is defined in Section 92A of the Act. Rule 10B of Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides most appropriate method for determination of arm's length price. Rule 10B(1)(e) provides method for determination of arm's length price by adopting

TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HOSUR vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 92A(1) or 92A (2) of the Act; and e. In determining the royalty income and consequently making an adjustment computation of tax. B. Non-transfer pricing

J RAY MCDERMOTT ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3239/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Income Tax, Services Pvt. Ltd. Rmz Millenia Business Park, 6Th Corporate Circle-2(2) 512, Wanaparthy Block, Floor, Campus 3B, No.143, Chennai-34. Dr.Mgr Road, Kandanchavady, Chennai-600 096. Pan: Aabcj 6787H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2. Transfer Pricing: 2.1 The TPO and DRP erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation/ benchmarking conducted by the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons for the same. 2.2 The DRP, AO and TPO erred in considering Acropetal Technologies Limited (“Acropetal”) as a comparable company when the Appellant had demonstrated that the Company is not comparable and that

AUGUSTAN KNITWEAR P LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 92CA) or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to two per cent of the value of the international transaction (or specififed domestic transaction) for each such failure] The ld. Authorised Representative vehemently argued that the provisions of Sec.271AA of the Act does not apply and Assessing Officer

ORCHID PHARMA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

price or related conditions, or not. It becomes influence, for the purpose of Section 92A(2)(i), when the seller is placed in such a situation that he has no choice, because of buyer's dominant influence, but to accept it. It is thus clear that context in which a reference is made to the expression 'influence' in section 92A

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

92A to 92F of the Income :-3-: ITA. No:609/Chny/2024 Tax Act, 1961. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings; a reference was made to JCIT (Transfer Pricing) for determination of arm’s length price of international transactions of the assessee with its AEs. The learned TPO vide its order dated