Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

340 ITR 477High Court2012#424 most cited

What is Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

If unabsorbed depreciation or losses from years prior to the initial assessment year for Section 80-IA claim have already been set off against other income, they cannot be notionally carried forward again to reduce the profits of the eligible unit for computing deduction under Section 80-IA. The notional carry forward provision under Section 80-IA(5) applies only to unabsorbed depreciation or losses that have not yet been absorbed.

213

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills · Section 80-IA · unabsorbed depreciation · unabsorbed losses · notional carry forward · already set off · eligible business deduction · Section 80-IA(5) · initial assessment year · 340 ITR 477

Also reported as

231 CTR 36838 DTR 57

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 40(a)(i)Section 80-IASection 80HHCSection 35(2AB)Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(5)initial assessment yeareligible businesssection 80ia(4)deduction u/s 80iaunabsorbed depreciationsection 80iasection 80igross total incomedisallowance under section 14acapital expendituresection 80

Judgments citing Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

Incometax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Sjlt Textiles, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 687/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sjlt Textiles, 2E, 2Nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [Pan: Aaics2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: All The Above Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2023 & 31.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A
Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एसएस िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. SJLT Textiles, 2E, 2nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [PAN: AAICS2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl…

Incometax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Sjlt Textiles, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 686/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sjlt Textiles, 2E, 2Nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [Pan: Aaics2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: All The Above Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2023 & 31.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A
Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एसएस िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. SJLT Textiles, 2E, 2nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [PAN: AAICS2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Advik Hi-Tech Private Limited, Pune

ITA 1203/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

…Ahmedabad Tribunal In the case of Goldmine Shares & Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra). However, the same could not be followed in view of the Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment in case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 95/340 ITR 477. ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Anil H Lad v. Dy.CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 454 (Bang.-Trib) did not follow the Special Bench decision of the Ahmedabad Bench Tribunal in view of above judgment of Madras High Court. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced for the sake of clarity: 16 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 "From reading of…

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi Pune

ITA 1157/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

…Ahmedabad Tribunal In the case of Goldmine Shares & Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra). However, the same could not be followed in view of the Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment in case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 95/340 ITR 477. ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Anil H Lad v. Dy.CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 454 (Bang.-Trib) did not follow the Special Bench decision of the Ahmedabad Bench Tribunal in view of above judgment of Madras High Court. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced for the sake of clarity: 16 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 "From reading of…

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Chakan Pune vs. Dy.Comm. of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi

ITA 1156/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

…Ahmedabad Tribunal In the case of Goldmine Shares & Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra). However, the same could not be followed in view of the Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment in case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 95/340 ITR 477. ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Anil H Lad v. Dy.CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 454 (Bang.-Trib) did not follow the Special Bench decision of the Ahmedabad Bench Tribunal in view of above judgment of Madras High Court. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced for the sake of clarity: 16 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 "From reading of…

Sanjay Shankarrao Jadhao, Amravati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 250

…n the official website of the Hon'ble Court. The other case referred to by the appellant, the decision of HIGH COURT OF MADRAS in the case Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd.v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, [2012] 21 taxmann.com 95 (Madras)/[2012] 340 ITR 477 (Madras) is indeed more relevant. However, the department has challenged the decision in Supreme Court, and an SLP was granted by the Hon'ble Court.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities belo…

Bsl Ltd., Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 31, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usbsl Ltd., Vs. Dcit 26, Industrial Area, Central Circle-31, Post Box No. 17, New Delhi. Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311 001 Pan No. Aabcb0639G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goel, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Assessee Is The Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Synthetic/Wollen/Worsted Yarn Fabrics & Synthetics Fabrics, Manufacturing & Trading Of Ready-Made Garments, Generation Of Power, Processing Of Synthetics Etc. Assessee Electronically Filed Its Return Of Income Bsl Ltd. Vs. Dcit 2

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 801Section 80I

…d by the order of AO assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). Before CIT(A) assessee apart from various submissions to support its stand also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. [231 CTR 368] (Mad.). The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to CIT(A). CIT(A) noted that a Special Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the Revenue which is reported in 113 ITD 209 (Ahmedabad) and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Micropals Limited vs. ACIT [56 taxmann.com 160] (Karnataka) had also decide…

Welspun Corp Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3890/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…anted marginal relief on restricting the claim. The Ld.AR has highlighted on the facts and relied on submissions made before appellate authorities and the judicial decisions. (i)Mohan Breweries Vs ACIT(116 ITD 241(chenai) (ii)Shevie Exports Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT (340 ITR 477) (iii)Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (p) Ltd Vs ACIT(340 ITR 477) (iv)Sadbhavengineering Ltd Vs DCIT(153 ITD234((Ahd) (v) Jivraj Tea &Industrial Ltd VsACIT(62 SOT74)(Ahd) we considering the facts, circumstances, ratio of judicial decisions and the factual paper book are of the opinion that the assessee should not suffer for non filing of mate…

Sri. Annesh, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmangalur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 124Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 234

…t in power of the Income Tax Officer in exercise of jurisdiction is independent of conduct of any party. Waiver can only be of irregular exercise of jurisdiction and not of lack of jurisdiction. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Venad Properties v. CIT, 340 ITR 463 relied upon by the Appellant/Revenue is a case of non-service of notice before passing of an order by an Officer having inherent jurisdiction. Therefore, it is a case of irregular exercise of jurisdiction and not absence of jurisdiction to issue notice. Therefore, it will have no application. 19. It is a settled position in law that mere particip…

M/S. Coromandel Sugars Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3391/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3390 & 3391/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Santhome High Road, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaaci 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(I/C), Chennai In Ita Nos.434 & 433/16-17/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2005-06 & 2013-14 Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.: 3390 & 3391/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The DCIT, No.93, Santhome High Road, vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. PAN: AAACI 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR…

M/S. Coromandel Sugars Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3390/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3390 & 3391/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Santhome High Road, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaaci 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(I/C), Chennai In Ita Nos.434 & 433/16-17/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2005-06 & 2013-14 Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.: 3390 & 3391/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The DCIT, No.93, Santhome High Road, vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. PAN: AAACI 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR…

Wheels India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2341/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeptha (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…the findings of the AO and the submissions of the appellant have been considered with diligence. While moving the appeal, the appellant relied on the decision of the hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 477 (Mad). The ratio of the case has been duly considered. While adjudicating the issue, the hon'ble High Court held "that the loss in the year earlier to the initial assessment year already absorbed against the profit of other business cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against the profits of the eligible business, as no such mandate i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 156/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80I

…ready reference, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: “50. It was argued that the issue under consideration is no longer res-integra and has already been decided by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhswamy Spinning Mills, 340 ITR 477, dated 11.03.2010, wherein it was held that the initial assessment year cannot be the year in which the undertaking commenced its operations but has to be the year in which assessee has chosen to claim deduction under section 80- IA for the first time. It was accordingly held that the provisions of section 80-IA(5) treating undertaking as a separ…

Dcir, New Delhi vs. M/S Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5704/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80I

…ready reference, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: “50. It was argued that the issue under consideration is no longer res-integra and has already been decided by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhswamy Spinning Mills, 340 ITR 477, dated 11.03.2010, wherein it was held that the initial assessment year cannot be the year in which the undertaking commenced its operations but has to be the year in which assessee has chosen to claim deduction under section 80- IA for the first time. It was accordingly held that the provisions of section 80-IA(5) treating undertaking as a separ…

DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi vs. Sterling Agro Inds. Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 584/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. Sterling Agro Inds. Ltd., 11Th Floor, Circle-24(2), New Delhi. Agarwal Cyber Plaza-Ii, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacs2278R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Dated 27.11.2019, Relating To Assessment Year 2016.- 17. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Reads As Follows:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs.12,63,07,697/-.”

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 5Section 801ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Vs. Sterling Agro Inds. Ltd., 11th Floor, Circle-24(2), New Delhi. Agarwal Cyber Plaza-II, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. PAN: AAACS2278R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 05.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-8, New Delhi, dated 27.11.20…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol. 3, Kol vs. M/S. Itc Limited

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are

ITAT/48/2015HC Calcutta05 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 5Th July, 2022 Appearance : Ms. S. Das De, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv…For Respondent. The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The Act, For Brevity] Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th September, 2014 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita Nos.1339 & 1144/Kol/2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Question Of Law For Consideration. I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Erred In Law In Deleting The Disallowances Of Commission To Non- Whole Time Directors Amounting To Rs.31,72,677/- & Sitting Fees Of Rs.13,20,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Relation To The Ay 2008-09 ?

Section 260ASection 40Section 80I

…are answered against the revenue. With regard to the substantial question of law No. 4 is concerned Tribunal rightly took note of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD. VS. ACIT :[(2012) 340 ITR 477 (Mad)]. The said decision was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the SLP filed by the department was dismissed as reported in (2016) 76 taxmann.com 176(SC). The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Madras in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SALEM VS. CHOLA SPINNING…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. Sharada Erectors Private Limited., Pune`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2041/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…/s.80IA of the Act is adjusted against income from house property of Rs.33,17,498/- and income from other sources of Rs.4,87,478/-. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 38 DTR 57 wherein the deduction is allowable. It had been contended that as far as the initial assessment year for the purposes of said deduction, the same will be the year in which deduction has been claimed by the assessee for the first time and not the year of installation of the wind mill facility. The assessee company has arrived at this amount of deduc…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. Sharada Erectors Private Limited., Pune`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2040/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…/s.80IA of the Act is adjusted against income from house property of Rs.33,17,498/- and income from other sources of Rs.4,87,478/-. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 38 DTR 57 wherein the deduction is allowable. It had been contended that as far as the initial assessment year for the purposes of said deduction, the same will be the year in which deduction has been claimed by the assessee for the first time and not the year of installation of the wind mill facility. The assessee company has arrived at this amount of deduc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3194/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…orward losses.” 49. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 50. It was argued that the issue under consideration is no longer res-integra and has already been decided by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhswamy Spinning Mills, 340 ITR 477, dated 11.03.2010, wherein it was held that the initial assessment year cannot be the year in which the undertaking commenced its operations but has to be the year in ITA Nos.2792 & 3194/Del/2016 NTPC Ltd. which assessee has chosen to claim deduction under section 80- IA for the first time. It was accordingly held that the provisions of section…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3590/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…orward losses.” 49. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 50. It was argued that the issue under consideration is no longer res-integra and has already been decided by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhswamy Spinning Mills, 340 ITR 477, dated 11.03.2010, wherein it was held that the initial assessment year cannot be the year in which the undertaking commenced its operations but has to be the year in ITA Nos.2792 & 3194/Del/2016 NTPC Ltd. which assessee has chosen to claim deduction under section 80- IA for the first time. It was accordingly held that the provisions of section…