NIPPON PAINT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.779/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustments. 3.1 Ground No.2.9 is related to selection of most appropriate method. The assessee company has adopted Resale Price Method as most appropriate method to determine the ALP of international transaction. The :- 20 -: assessee company has not maintained segmental financials for manufacturing and trading account segment separately. Further, the assessee purchased raw materials and some of the goods

SOCOMEC INNOVATIVE POWER SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 848/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Socomec Innovative Deputy Commissioner Of Power Solutions Pvt Ltd., V. Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Socomec Corporate Circle 6(2), Ups India Pvt Ltd) Chennai – 600 034. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aakcs-3579-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Marutha Pandiarajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2023

TP study that Resale Price Method (RPM) is one of the accepted methods out of five methods in Transfer Pricing

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)

Transfer Pricing provisions which is without considering the facts and contrary to law OBJECTIONS AGAINST TREATMENT OF ADVERTISEMENT AND MARKET PROMOTION ACTIVITY AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH AE That the Ld. TPO / AO have erred in exceeding the jurisdiction provided under the law in treating the expenditure involving payments to third parties towards its advertisement and market promotion activities

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3137/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

Transfer Pricing Officer shall examine the issue in the light of the method prescribed under Rule 10B for the purpose of determination of the Arm's Length Price.” 5.2 We are in consonance with the facts that the Associated Enterprises rendered services and the payments have been made by the assessee company though assessee could not substantiate

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCIT (OSD),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2546/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax (Osd), 4/249A, Rasim Enclave, Corporate Circle –1(2), Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Near Savitha Dental College, Goparasanallur, Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. Pan: Aaccc7628P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2017

Price in relation to the international transaction and the method adopted by the assessee being TNM method cannot prove that services have been received and it certainly does not put a value to them. Further comparables may not have made payments for the receipt of said services and the TNM method does not measure the ALP of international transactions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

HOWDEN SOLYVENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

Method (TNMM), offered no Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment in its own TP study Report. During the course of hearing, the assessee

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

TP adjustment is required to be made by applying one of the prescribed methods. The TPO has not applied any prescribed method and has only disallowed part of the expenses as done in the normal assessment, which is not permitted under transfer pricing

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

TP adjustment is required to be made by applying one of the prescribed methods. The TPO has not applied any prescribed method and has only disallowed part of the expenses as done in the normal assessment, which is not permitted under transfer pricing

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 -:

TP adjustment on sale to AE by applying TNMM methods as against CUP as most appropriate methods . The Ld. A.O also further made adjustment for the rate of interest paid by the assessee on inter corporate convertible debentures (ICCD) issued to its AE. 2.5 While recommending upward adjustment for the profit shared between the assessee and its Associated Enterprise abroad

AMBATTUR CLOTHING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TP documentation benchmarked these\ninternational transactions under CUP method. The TPO in the Transfer Pricing Order\nhas observed the following

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.393/Chny/2018 & आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.89/Chny/2018 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Titan Company Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income No.3, Spicot Industrial Complex, Vs. Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. Ltu-2, [Pan: Aaact 5131A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing study and adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method to benchmark its inter-unit transactions. The TPO has not pointed out any specific defects in the TP

POS HYUNDAI STEEL MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LTD.,SRIPERAMBUDUR vs. CIT(A), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Transfer Pricing provisions are not an exception. Since, the assessee :- 12 -: itself has adopted the CUP method and made TP

DURR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

transfer pricing study made by the assessee. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authorities and accordingly the same is confirmed’’. In the case of Frigoglass India (P) Ltd (supra) Delhi Bench of the Tribunal had held CUP method could be adopted after discarding TNMM only when a comparable product or service

DURR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

transfer pricing study made by the assessee. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authorities and accordingly the same is confirmed’’. In the case of Frigoglass India (P) Ltd (supra) Delhi Bench of the Tribunal had held CUP method could be adopted after discarding TNMM only when a comparable product or service

DURR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

transfer pricing study made by the assessee. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authorities and accordingly the same is confirmed’’. In the case of Frigoglass India (P) Ltd (supra) Delhi Bench of the Tribunal had held CUP method could be adopted after discarding TNMM only when a comparable product or service

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(2),, CHENNAI vs. KONE ELEVATORS INDIA LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee as well

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T(Tp)A No.:85/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2014 – 2015 M/S. Kone Elevator India Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Prestige Centre Court, 9Th Floor, Corporate Ward – 4(2), 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, The Forum Vijaya Mall, Plot No.183, Nsk Salai, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 026. Chennai – 600 034. Pan : Aaack 2567P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Transfer Pricing norms, when we used CUP method and TNMM method confirming arm's length price.” :: 4 :: I.T.(TP)A. No.85/Chny2019

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

TP adjustment in case of payment of research & development (R&D) and management fee – 1. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Corporate Range 1, Chennai (Assessing Officer or the AO) pursuant to the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer pricing officer or TPO) and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Dispute