India Ltd. v. CIT (Supra). He

ITA 117/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

…Tribunal in M.A No. 11/Chd/2023, for re-adjudication on merits. 10.2 The matter, is correctly pointed out, stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in “ Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2007) 303 ITR 411(P&H). Therein, it has been held that interest received on delayed payments on account of sale to customers can clearly be termed as income derived from an industrial undertaking. The being so, it is, obviously, business income of the assessee and it has wrongly been treated as income from other sources. 10.3 The Tribunal itself, in the case of th…

ACIT,CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

ITA 486/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

…Tribunal in M.A No. 11/Chd/2023, for re-adjudication on merits. 10.2 The matter, is correctly pointed out, stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in “ Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2007) 303 ITR 411(P&H). Therein, it has been held that interest received on delayed payments on account of sale to customers can clearly be termed as income derived from an industrial undertaking. The being so, it is, obviously, business income of the assessee and it has wrongly been treated as income from other sources. 10.3 The Tribunal itself, in the case of th…

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

ITA 260/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

…Tribunal in M.A No. 11/Chd/2023, for re-adjudication on merits. 10.2 The matter, is correctly pointed out, stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in “ Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2007) 303 ITR 411(P&H). Therein, it has been held that interest received on delayed payments on account of sale to customers can clearly be termed as income derived from an industrial undertaking. The being so, it is, obviously, business income of the assessee and it has wrongly been treated as income from other sources. 10.3 The Tribunal itself, in the case of th…

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

ITA 187/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

…Tribunal in M.A No. 11/Chd/2023, for re-adjudication on merits. 10.2 The matter, is correctly pointed out, stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in “ Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2007) 303 ITR 411(P&H). Therein, it has been held that interest received on delayed payments on account of sale to customers can clearly be termed as income derived from an industrial undertaking. The being so, it is, obviously, business income of the assessee and it has wrongly been treated as income from other sources. 10.3 The Tribunal itself, in the case of th…

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

…Tribunal in M.A No. 11/Chd/2023, for re-adjudication on merits. 10.2 The matter, is correctly pointed out, stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in “ Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2007) 303 ITR 411(P&H). Therein, it has been held that interest received on delayed payments on account of sale to customers can clearly be termed as income derived from an industrial undertaking. The being so, it is, obviously, business income of the assessee and it has wrongly been treated as income from other sources. 10.3 The Tribunal itself, in the case of th…

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

…/122 Тахman 516 (Mad.), 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 251 (Bom.); 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); ITA. No. 2633/MUM/2024 Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai. 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175/165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). 6. We have carefully perused the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein observation in respect of the issue involved is as under :- "33. However,…

M/S STANDARD FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.7(2), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 178/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 194ASection 2Section 40

…f the provisions of s. 194A.— Nirma Industries Ltd. vs Dy. CIT (2006) 202 CTR (Guj) 198: (2006) 283 ITR 402 (Guj), CIT vs. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (Mad) 493: (2006) 286 ITR 201 (Mad) and Phatela Cotgin Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2008) 303 ITR 411 (P&H) relied on. An another interesting feature involved to resolve this controversy is that the Revenue otherwise cannot allow the claim of payment under s. 36(1)(Hi) because as per this section, the deduction is provided in respect of the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business. The only provision unde…

NHDC LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, Cross appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes and CO is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 40/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninhdc Limited Dcit, 3(1) F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Shyamla Bhopal Vs. Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 1732G Dcit, 3(1) Nhdc Limited Bhopal F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Vs. Shyamla Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn 1732G

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…hus, the direct result of the sale of goods and the income is derived from the business of industrial undertaking. 17. The same view is expressed by the various other High Courts in the following judgments: (i) Phatela Cotgin Industries (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 (P&H); (ii) CIT v. Flender Macneill Gears Ltd. [1984] 150 ITR 83 (Cal); (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 (Orissa); and (iv) CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 201 (Mad). 18. There is no reason to depart from the aforesaid view taken consistently by various High Courts, which is in tune with the principle la…

DCIT 3 (1) , BHOPAL vs. M/S NHDC LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, Cross appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes and CO is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 316/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninhdc Limited Dcit, 3(1) F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Shyamla Bhopal Vs. Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 1732G Dcit, 3(1) Nhdc Limited Bhopal F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Vs. Shyamla Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn 1732G

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…hus, the direct result of the sale of goods and the income is derived from the business of industrial undertaking. 17. The same view is expressed by the various other High Courts in the following judgments: (i) Phatela Cotgin Industries (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 (P&H); (ii) CIT v. Flender Macneill Gears Ltd. [1984] 150 ITR 83 (Cal); (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 (Orissa); and (iv) CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 201 (Mad). 18. There is no reason to depart from the aforesaid view taken consistently by various High Courts, which is in tune with the principle la…

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 2131/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Pranay Gandhi, AR

Section 194H

…4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); M/s Wackardt Ltd. 11 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 IT…

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2314/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Gokhale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, D.R

Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), M/s. Wockhardt Ltd., Room No.310, Wockhardt Towers, 3rd Floor, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, MTNL Building, Mumbai – 400 051 Cumballa Hill, PAN: AAACW2472M Mumbai - 400026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vallabh Gokhale, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, D.R. Date of Hearing : 15 . 12 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20 . 12 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Mem…

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3). MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S WOCKHARDT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 894/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli

Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…/122 Taxman 516 (Mad.); 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 251 (Bom.); 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). 6. We have carefully perused the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein observation in respect of the issue involved is as under :— "33. However, the parties having made elaborate submissions…

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI., MUMBAI. vs. M/S WOCKHARDT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 893/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli

Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…/122 Taxman 516 (Mad.); 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 251 (Bom.); 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). 6. We have carefully perused the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein observation in respect of the issue involved is as under :— "33. However, the parties having made elaborate submissions…

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. NLC INDIA LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 952/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

ITA 953/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

…uction, then only net amount be considered in computing deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents:- i. CIT vs. Translam Limited [2014] 231 taxmann 901(All) ii. CIT vs Phatela Cotgin Industries P Ltd [2008] 303 ITR 411 (P&H) iii. Avalon Technologies P Ltd vs. ACIT [2015] 36 ITR(T) 567 (Chennai Tri) iv. CIT vs. Prakash Oils Limited [2011] 58 DTR 279 (Tri- Indore) 3.3 The ld.DR, on the other hand submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench for earlier assessment years, where the Tribunal after consider…

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. NLC INDIA LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

ITA 869/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

…uction, then only net amount be considered in computing deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents:- i. CIT vs. Translam Limited [2014] 231 taxmann 901(All) ii. CIT vs Phatela Cotgin Industries P Ltd [2008] 303 ITR 411 (P&H) iii. Avalon Technologies P Ltd vs. ACIT [2015] 36 ITR(T) 567 (Chennai Tri) iv. CIT vs. Prakash Oils Limited [2011] 58 DTR 279 (Tri- Indore) 3.3 The ld.DR, on the other hand submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench for earlier assessment years, where the Tribunal after consider…

NLC INDIA LTD.,NEYVELI vs. DCIT LTU II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

ITA 868/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

…uction, then only net amount be considered in computing deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents:- i. CIT vs. Translam Limited [2014] 231 taxmann 901(All) ii. CIT vs Phatela Cotgin Industries P Ltd [2008] 303 ITR 411 (P&H) iii. Avalon Technologies P Ltd vs. ACIT [2015] 36 ITR(T) 567 (Chennai Tri) iv. CIT vs. Prakash Oils Limited [2011] 58 DTR 279 (Tri- Indore) 3.3 The ld.DR, on the other hand submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench for earlier assessment years, where the Tribunal after consider…

NLC INDIA LTD.,NEYVELI vs. DCIT LTU II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit