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

M/S. Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3535/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…

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…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 partici…

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…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 partici…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palanikumar, CIT (
Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘ D ‘ CHENNAI BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE S/SHRI SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner of of Vs. M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd., M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (old III(2), New Block, 4th floor, 121, III(2), New Bloc…

Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 993/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2012-13 Aarvee Denims & Exports Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 191, Shahwadi, Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Old Octroi Naka Narol-Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Aarvee Denims & Exports Ahmedabad. Vs Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against Order Dated 30.3.2016 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-1/Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1)/738/2014-15 Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. We Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…upon respective orders of the Revenue authorities and prayed for allowing their respective claims. Further, the ld.counsel for the assessee to support its claim also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Valaudhswamu Spg. Mills, 340 ITR 477, decision of ITAT in the case of Sadbhav Engg. Ltd., 153 ITD 2334 which followed Hon’ble Madras High Court decision, and CBDT Circular No.1/2016 dated 15.2.2016. 15. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities, and also certain case laws cited by the parties. The issue before us is, whether the prof…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1553/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2012-13 Aarvee Denims & Exports Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 191, Shahwadi, Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Old Octroi Naka Narol-Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Aarvee Denims & Exports Ahmedabad. Vs Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against Order Dated 30.3.2016 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-1/Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1)/738/2014-15 Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. We Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…upon respective orders of the Revenue authorities and prayed for allowing their respective claims. Further, the ld.counsel for the assessee to support its claim also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Valaudhswamu Spg. Mills, 340 ITR 477, decision of ITAT in the case of Sadbhav Engg. Ltd., 153 ITD 2334 which followed Hon’ble Madras High Court decision, and CBDT Circular No.1/2016 dated 15.2.2016. 15. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities, and also certain case laws cited by the parties. The issue before us is, whether the prof…

The ACIT, Circle2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Kalthia Engineering & Construction Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2127/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2127/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 A.C.I.T., Kalthia Engineering & Construction Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Vs. 193, Kalthia House, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.B Gohil, Sr. D.R
Section 106Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…rom the perusal of various judicial pronouncements that the preponderant judicial opinion is in favour of the appellant. The leading judgment on the issue is that of Honourable High Court of Madras in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Private Limited [340 ITR 477]. For ready reference the head notes of the decision of the Honourable High Court is reproduced as under:- "Under section 8Q-IA(1), deduction is given to eligible business and the same is defined in sub-section (4). Sub-section (2) provides option to the assessee to chose 10 consecutive assessment years out of 15 years. Option has to be exercised…

Torrent Power Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Range-8, Ahmedabad

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254

…ssessee against the eligible undertaking located at Bhiwandi, we note that the issue is no longer rest integra and settled in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Vs. ACIT reported in 340 ITR 477. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 116.1 with respect to the other issues, at the outset we note that, these issues raised by the Revenue have already been adjudicated along with the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 776/AHD/2012 where the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed vide paragraph No. 59, 65, 80 and…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur vs. Priyadarshini Polysacks Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1669/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1668 & 1669/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 8O

…ch the unit or undertaking had commenced the commercial production. The approach of AO is obviously against the plain provisions of sub-section (2) of section 80IA of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Vs. ACIT 340 ITR 477 (Mad) clearly held that the initial assessment year would mean the first year opted by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act out of block of years and not the first year of commencement of operations of eligible business. In fact, the CBDT also issued a Circular No.1/2016, dated 15.02.2016 accepting the legal position enunciated…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur vs. Priyadarshini Polysacks Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1668/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1668 & 1669/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 8O

…ch the unit or undertaking had commenced the commercial production. The approach of AO is obviously against the plain provisions of sub-section (2) of section 80IA of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Vs. ACIT 340 ITR 477 (Mad) clearly held that the initial assessment year would mean the first year opted by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act out of block of years and not the first year of commencement of operations of eligible business. In fact, the CBDT also issued a Circular No.1/2016, dated 15.02.2016 accepting the legal position enunciated…

M/S. Gyanshankar Investment & Trading Co. P. Ltd.(Before Amalgamation M/S. Stellar Credit& E-Trading P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…n the assessment proceedings and their consequent orders cannot and should not be vitiated on the said ground of mistake, defect or omission in the summons/notice." 14. This judgment had also made reference to decision Venad Properties (P.) Ltd v. CIT [2012] 340 ITR 463/[2013] 212 Taxman 20/[2011] 16 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi) in which Section 282 of the Act relating to service of notices was considered and examined. This section on description/inscription on notice and method/mode of service was held to be procedural in nature and should be interpreted in a practical and pragmatic manner. Procedural rules and requi…

Parkkot Maritime Agencies Private Limited., Goa vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/PAN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.V.Shivrama Iyer, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr.DR
Section 5Section 80

…n the matter of ACIT Circle (4) Ahmedabad Vs. Goldmine Shares and Finance Private Limited (2008) 113 ITD 209 (Ahmedabad) (Special Bench). The Honourable Madras High Court's decision in the case of • Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Private Limited Vs. ACTT (2012)340 ITR 477 (Madras) was ignored stating that Revenue's appeal in the same case is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. This matter has again decision of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eastern Spinning Mills P Ltd in (2015) 372 ITR 88. It is needless to mention here that the decision of a higher legal authority which is also a subsequent dec…

Parkkot Maritime Agencies Private Limited., Goa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao.

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 181/PAN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.V.Shivrama Iyer, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr.DR
Section 5Section 80

…n the matter of ACIT Circle (4) Ahmedabad Vs. Goldmine Shares and Finance Private Limited (2008) 113 ITD 209 (Ahmedabad) (Special Bench). The Honourable Madras High Court's decision in the case of • Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Private Limited Vs. ACTT (2012)340 ITR 477 (Madras) was ignored stating that Revenue's appeal in the same case is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. This matter has again decision of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eastern Spinning Mills P Ltd in (2015) 372 ITR 88. It is needless to mention here that the decision of a higher legal authority which is also a subsequent dec…

Jayant Agro Organics Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT (Tp) 2 (2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6073/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 92C

…I.T.A. Nos.6073 &6074/Mum/2019 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.6073/Mum/2019 - Assessment year 2013-14 I.T.A. No.6074/Mum/2019 - Assessment year 2014-15 Jayant Agro Organics Limited vs Addl. CIT (TP)-2(2), Mumbai 701, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACJ7581Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Madhur Agarwal / Shri Siddhant Banwat, AR Respondent by Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR) Date of hearing 04-08-2021 Date of pronouncemen…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 737/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos: 2145 & 2210/CHNY/2017, ITA 737/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, v. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. PAN: AAACT 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर…

DCIT-2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2210/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos: 2145 & 2210/CHNY/2017, ITA 737/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, v. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. PAN: AAACT 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर…

DCIT, Corporate Circle -2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2145/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos: 2145 & 2210/CHNY/2017, ITA 737/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, v. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. PAN: AAACT 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर…

The India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2038/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos: 2145 & 2210/CHNY/2017, ITA 737/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, v. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. PAN: AAACT 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर…

Bajaj Finserv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Large Texpayer Unit, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY

ITA 4223/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Bajaj Finserv Limited, बनाम/ The Deputy Commissioner 226,Bajaj Bhawan, Of Income Tax – Large Vs. 2 Flr,Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Taxpayer Unit, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2924N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy j Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija, CIT DR
Section 143Section 14ASection 244ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Bajaj Finserv Limited, बनाम/ The Deputy Commissioner 226,Bajaj Bhawan, of Income Tax – Large Vs. 2 flr,Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Taxpayer Unit, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCB2924N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Percy j Pardiwalla, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Shishir Dhamija, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 09/04/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronou…

Petronet Lng Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5232/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 234C

…puted after deduction of the notionally brought forward losses and depreciation of the eligible business even though they were in fact set-off against other income in the earlier years 29. The Hon’ble Court of Madras in the case of VS Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 340 ITR 477 held that the eligible business was the only source of income, during the previous year relevant to initial assessment year and every subsequent assessment years, when the assessee exercises the option, the only losses of the years beginning from initial assessment year alone are to be brought forward and no losses of earlier years which were alr…