ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO.LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

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

price after retaining liabilities to be borne by the purchaser. In Clause 3.2 of the sale deed executed between the assessee and the purchaser it is clearly stated that the undertaking is transferred as a going concern on "slump sale basis". The assessee also initially treated the sale of industrial unit as "slump sale" and when income tax return

DCIT, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO, LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

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

price after retaining liabilities to be borne by the purchaser. In Clause 3.2 of the sale deed executed between the assessee and the purchaser it is clearly stated that the undertaking is transferred as a going concern on "slump sale basis". The assessee also initially treated the sale of industrial unit as "slump sale" and when income tax return

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

50,000) by an individual or an HUF is chargeable to Income-tax. *[2010] 321 ITR (St.) 110, 123. Page No : 0636 in the hands of recipient under the head 'income from other sources'. However, receipts from relatives or on the occasion of marriage or under a will are outside the scope of this provision. The existing definition of property

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

50% of additional claim of Rs. 75,89,85,525/- revenue expenditure 3 Apollo Tyres Ltd. 150% Capital Expenditure Rs. 53,87,57,064 Out of the above expenditure the DSIR in Form 3CL quantified the eligible amount as under: - (Rs. In lakhs) Land and Building Rs. 280.30 Capital Expenditure (Capital Rs. 1280.86/- Equipment other than Building) 3498.12 Revenue Expenditure

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI.PRINCE JOSEPH, KOCHI

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

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

50% of the price agreed was paid while in the this case, 80% of the sale consideration have been paid. 4. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the fact that the AO established implied handing over of possession in the assessment order. The sale consideration received by the assessee has not been refunded to the buyer

M/S.AMALGAM FOODS LTD,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT, CIR-1, ALLEPPEY, ALLEPPEY

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

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

section 50(2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets. Which he was using in running of his business. Such is not the case here because in this case, the assessee sold the entire business as a running concern." 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied

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

50,02,98,250 15 Reimbursement of expenses 1,07,78,001 16 Recovery of expenses 3,69,14,146 3. On noticing the above international transactions, the AO referred the matter to the 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

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

50,26,341/-. While going through the Transfer Pricing study submitted by you for A. Y 2012-13, it is seen that you have adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method as the most appropriate method while benchmarking the international transactions undertaken with Associated Enterprises. You have compared your AE sale price with the rates published by The Marine Products Export Development

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

transfer pricing purposes are computed based on the books and not based on tax books and the prior period income was accounted in the books only in FY 2009-10 and hence, must be considered in this year. According to the Ld. AR, the Company had disclosed the said prior period income in the Form 3CEB

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

transfer pricing purposes are computed based on the books and not based on tax books and the prior period income was accounted in the books only in FY 2009-10 and hence, must be considered in this year. According to the Ld. AR, the Company had disclosed the said prior period income in the Form 3CEB

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

Transfer Pricing) (,TPO'), inter alia, since the TPO has not recorded an opinion that any of the conditions in section 92C(3) of the Act, were satisfied in the instant case. Accordingly, the order passed by the TPO is without jurisdiction.; 2.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and accordingly

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

Transfer Pricing) (,TPO'), inter alia, since the TPO has not recorded an opinion that any of the conditions in section 92C(3) of the Act, were satisfied in the instant case. Accordingly, the order passed by the TPO is without jurisdiction.; 2.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and accordingly

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\nfor statistical purpose and the stay application is dismissed as\ninfructuous

section 92CA(1) of the Act, to the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer (TPO) for the purpose of determination of ALP in respect of\nthe above international transaction.\n4\nThe TPO vide order dated 09/10/2023 passed u/s. 92CA(3),\nsuggested the TP adjustment in respect of software development\nagreement of Rs. 12,84,50

ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. REVENUED(INDIA) P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the additional ground raised is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 10A of the Act.” Additional Ground: 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O./TPO erred in computation of operating profit margins of the tested party. IT(TP)A No.144 & 146/Coch/2015 3 SA No.25/Coch/2018. M/s.Navigant BPM (India) Pvt.Ltd. 4. We shall adjudicate the above grounds as follows:- Ground No. 7.1 (Transfer Pricing

M/S.REVENUE MED INDIA (P) LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the additional ground raised is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 10A of the Act.” Additional Ground: 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O./TPO erred in computation of operating profit margins of the tested party. IT(TP)A No.144 & 146/Coch/2015 3 SA No.25/Coch/2018. M/s.Navigant BPM (India) Pvt.Ltd. 4. We shall adjudicate the above grounds as follows:- Ground No. 7.1 (Transfer Pricing

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

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

In the result, ground Nos

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

Transfer pricing adjustment was reduced to Rs.6,72,554. 2.3 The Assessing Officer on receipt of the DRP’s order dated 12.08.2016, passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 92CA of the I.T.Act and issued the demand notice u/s 156 of the Act raising a total demand of Rs.9,38,08,666. 2.4 Aggrieved

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned