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)

transferable and non sub licensable license to use the Technical Documentation and Intellectual Property Rights to sell the Licensed Vehicles exclusively to Licensor or any of Licensor’s Affiliates, and the corresponding localized spare parts to Nissan, Licensor or any of their respective Affiliates’’. The licensor here is M/s. Renault S.A.S. France and the licensee is M/s. RNAIPL. No doubt

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

Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') under Section 92CA of the Act. Accordingly several notices under section 92CA(2) and 92D(3) read with section 129 were issued to the Appellant with a questionnaire enclosed alongside seeking details with respect to the international transactions of the Appellant. The Appellant made the relevant submissions in response to each of the notices. After examining

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 as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

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

Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

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 as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

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 as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

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 as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

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 as well as the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 of the lower authority. However, since the nature of transaction and the relationship was not brought on record, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities

INDIA PISTONS LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2207 & 2208/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2004-05. M/S.India Pistons Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Arjay Apex Centre, Of Income Tax, No.24, College Road, Corporate Circle 2(3) Chennai 600 026. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaaci 1439E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1) and (2) of Section 92D of the Act and failure to furnish such information and documents as required under Sub Section (3) of very same Section. Reply of the assessee was that it had provided to the ld. TPO the following particulars:- ITA Nos.2207 & 2208/17 :- 3 -: a) Brief note on the international transactions entered into by M/s. India Pistons

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...

price. As regards the contention of the assessee that ‘brand building’, even if that be so, is not an international transaction, the TPO, inter alia, observed as follows: Section 92B of the Income-tax Act reads as follows: "92B (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92 92C. 92D and 92E, international transaction means a transaction between

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...

price. As regards the contention of the assessee that ‘brand building’, even if that be so, is not an international transaction, the TPO, inter alia, observed as follows: Section 92B of the Income-tax Act reads as follows: "92B (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92 92C. 92D and 92E, international transaction means a transaction between

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...

price. As regards the contention of the assessee that ‘brand building’, even if that be so, is not an international transaction, the TPO, inter alia, observed as follows: Section 92B of the Income-tax Act reads as follows: "92B (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92 92C. 92D and 92E, international transaction means a transaction between

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...

price. As regards the contention of the assessee that ‘brand building’, even if that be so, is not an international transaction, the TPO, inter alia, observed as follows: Section 92B of the Income-tax Act reads as follows: "92B (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92 92C. 92D and 92E, international transaction means a transaction between

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...

price. As regards the contention of the assessee that ‘brand building’, even if that be so, is not an international transaction, the TPO, inter alia, observed as follows: Section 92B of the Income-tax Act reads as follows: "92B (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92 92C. 92D and 92E, international transaction means a transaction between

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1

YCH LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM, TAMILNADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -3(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ych Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech Sez Phase Ii, V. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacy-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1. YCH Logistics India Private Limited ('YCH' or 'the Appellant') submits that the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, Chennai ('CIT(A)') dated 22 September 2023 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case

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

1) or sub-section (2) of Section 92D. (ii) Fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so; or (iii) Maintains or furnished an incorrect information or document, :- 6 -: The Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to two per cent of the value

DURR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the grounds of the appeal are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

transfer pricing analysis (in accordance with the provisions of Sec 92D of the Act read with Rule 1 OD of the Income Tax Rules 1962) carried out by the Appellant following Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) without providing any cogent reasons. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the international transactions of the Appellant being closely linked