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

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) and 92D

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

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

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

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

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

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

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

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

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

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

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

92D of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers and the required information as provided in Rule 10D(3)(g) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 49. On the contrary, Shri

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)

3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer “or the Transfer Pricing Officer as referred to in section 92CA” or the Commissioner

ORCHID CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

3) given by us that this issue has been examined and it has been found that the transaction in question were actually international transactions and that the DPs and the Applicant were "Associated Enterprises". Therefore, it is irrelevant that the transfer pricing issue has not been considered in the hands of the other Indian pharmaceutical companies though they have similar

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...

3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance against attributing

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...

3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance against attributing

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...

3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance against attributing

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...

3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance against attributing

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...

3. The cross objection is thus dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Ground no. 1 is general and it does not call for any specific adjudication by us. Transfer Pricing Issue: 6. In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised a grievance against attributing

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

3) of Section 92D, the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer as referred to in section 92CA) or the Commissioner

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)

Transfer Pricing "documentation maintained under section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'). Further erred in not satisfying the conditions mentioned u/s.92C(3

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

JACOBI CARBONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant and in rejecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price (‘CUP’) as the Most Appropriate ITA No.386/Mds./2017 :- 3 -: Method (‘MAM’). The Hon’ble DRP has erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO/AO. 2.2 The Ld. TPO/AO erred in appreciating the fact that the Appellant had undertaken a scientific search on a bonafide intention