M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

3) read with Section 92CA read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], as per the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bangalore [for short ‘DRP’], on 07/08/2017 under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a subsidiary of International Business

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM vs. M/S.OLAM AGRO INDIA P. LTD, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

Section 144C by the AO and therefore Transfer Pricing adjustment made by the TPO cannot be acted upon. Even though a draft assessment order was not served on the assessee by the assessing officer, assessee was given enough opportunities to represent its case and was well informed about the upward adjustments proposed by the TPO. The TPO before finalizing order

THE ACIT CORPORATE, COCHIN vs. M/S.KERA FIBERTEX INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.” (emphasis, ours) The Controversy 4.1 The law in the matter is, thus, amply clear, and the procedure well laid out, qua which there could therefore possibly be no cleavage of opinion. The issue, as we discern

M/S.KERA FIBERTEX INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.” (emphasis, ours) The Controversy 4.1 The law in the matter is, thus, amply clear, and the procedure well laid out, qua which there could therefore possibly be no cleavage of opinion. The issue, as we discern

APOLLO TYRES LTD.,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025

144C(13) & 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 20th June, 2024, by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (AO') pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'), and the additions/disallowances made by the Id. AO/TPO, are grossly injudicious, unwarranted, against the facts of the case and bad in law. 2. The additions/disallowances made

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 28.10.2016 3 Apollo Tyres Ltd. passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act suggested upward TP adjustments in respect of corporate guarantee commission provided to Apollo Vredestein BV (AVBV) of Rs. 3

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

144C of the I.T.Act disallowing the deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act and interest expenses on funds advanced. In response to the draft assessment order, the assessee filed submissions before the Assessing Officer intimating its inability to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in the absence of transfer pricing adjustment in the draft assessment order. The final assessment

US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Us Technology International Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) 621, Nila, Technopark Campus 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kariyavattom, Trivandrum 695581 Kowdiar [Pan: Aaacu5628B] Thiruvananthapuram 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 24.02.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised fresh grounds of appeal detailed as under: “Ground No. 1-Assessment and Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law 1.1 The final order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) ('Assessing

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

3) r.w.s. 144C(13) after proposing the following additions:- a) Addition by way of adjustments of Rs. 7,86,61,786/- b) Addition made on account of leasehold premises of Rs. 12,12,97,648/-. 4 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. c) Addition on account of insurance claim received

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

3) r.w.s. 144C(13) after proposing the following additions:- a) Addition by way of adjustments of Rs. 7,86,61,786/- b) Addition made on account of leasehold premises of Rs. 12,12,97,648/-. 4 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. c) Addition on account of insurance claim received

M/S.MICROOBJECTS P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm M/S. Microobjects Private Limited, Vs The Asst. Commr Of Income Tax 41/1098B, Pullepady Cross Road, Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi. Kochi-682018. ( Appellant) (Respondent)

3) read with section 144C of the I.T. Act. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a private limited company. It is a captive service provider (software developer) for its associate enterprise (AE) which is based in USA. For the assessment year 2011-12, the return

TORRY HARRIS SEA FOODS LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

144C(5) of the Act dated 25/08/2016. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore is not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant for the Glazing Loss in the commodity exported. I.T.(TP)A. No./447C/2016 2. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Transfer Pricing adjustment @ 0.6% as claimed by the assessee and to remove the three companies out of five companies arrived by the TPO, which are broadly engaged in similar services and therefore functionally comparable. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA on gas turbine unit

UST GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 92CA(1) of the Act, to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the purpose of determination of ALP in respect of the above international transaction. 4 The TPO vide order dated 09/10/2023 passed u/s. 92CA(3), suggested the TP adjustment in respect of software development agreement of Rs. 12,84,50,000/- and also interest on delayed receivables

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru dated 18/12/2014 and pertain to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 Non-allowance of prior period income in the computation of margins of the Company Relief • The Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") erred

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru dated 18/12/2014 and pertain to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 Non-allowance of prior period income in the computation of margins of the Company Relief • The Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") erred

M/S.NAVIGANT BPM (INDIA) P. LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS REVENUE MED INDIA P. LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground No.4

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.4,12,31,390 as per TPO’s order; and (ii) Disallowance of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.1,85,34,036. 3. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s 144C(2B) of the I.T.Act. The DRP vide its directions dated 23.11.2015 disposed

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

Transfer Pricing Order made an adjustment of Rs.2,03,38,752/- towards notional guarantee commission in respect of corporate guarantee given by the assessee for its Subsidiary.After receiving the order of the TPO, the Assessing Officer made a draft assessment order u/s 144(1) proposing to make the following adjustments:- i. Addition as proposed by TPO — towards notional Guarantee Commission