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 367,154 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

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Jivraj Tea Company, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2343/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2343/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Jivraj Tea Company, Of Income Tax, 5/258-259, Jivraj Chambers, Circle – 2(3), Surat. Ruwala Tekra, Bhagal, Surat. [Pan: Aacfj 2236 R] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Prasoon Kabra – Cit-Dr

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80I

…. Further, from the first appellate order, we also observe that the ld. CIT(A) being a cautious first appellate authority also considered the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 340 ITR 477 (Mad.) and decision of ITAT, Chennai in the case of Rangamma Steels and Malleables vs. ACIT 6 taxmann.com 47 (Chennai), wherein the issue has been decided after considering the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT, Ahemdabad in the case of Goldmine Shares & Finance Pvt. Ltd. 116 TTJ 705 (Ahd.) and held that the Hon'ble High Cour…

Asst. CIT, Circle-6, Pune vs. Sakal Papers Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 926/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 80I

…Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed in the case of CIT Vs. Best Corporation Ltd.(supra.), wherein the High Court held that since it had consistently followed decision in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P.) ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 477 (Mad) and on the basis of said decision CBDT had issued Circular No.1 of 2016, dated 15.02.2016 clarifying term 'initial assessment year' in section 80IA(5) of the Act, order of Tribunal holding that assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80IA of the Act without setting off losses/unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to windmill, which we…

ITO, Non Corporate Ward -8(3), Chennai vs. Karman Engineering Services LLP, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2129/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2129/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Karmen Engineering Services Llp, Non-Corp Ward 8(3), No.12, Ponniamman Nagar Road, Chennai – 34 Ayyanambakkam, Chennai - 95 Pan:Aanfk5674M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

…case, it appears that the Ld.CIT(A) have observed certain incorrect computation made by the Ld.AO. Further the Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., reported in 340 ITR 477 while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee, which was lost sight by the Ld.AO. However in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the Ld.AO is required to re-examine the entire matter in the light of the observations made by the Ld.CIT(A) and prayer of the Ld,AR to rectify the mistake made by the Ld.AO for adopting Rs…

Sakal Paper Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Cir.-6, Pune

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

ITA 937/PUN/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2008 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-6, Pune …. Vs. Sakal Papers Ltd., 595, Budhawar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaccs7605Q

For Appellant: Shri Ashok KothariFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed in the case of CIT Vs. Best Corporation Ltd. (supra), wherein the High Court held that since it had consistently followed decision in case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 477 (Mad) and on the basis of said decision CBDT had issued Circular No.1 of 2016, dated 15.02.2016 clarifying term ‘initial assessment year’ in section 80IA(5) of the Act, order of Tribunal holding that assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80IA of the Act without setting off losses/unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to windmill, which we…

ACIT, Cir.-6., Pune vs. Sakal Paper Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 725/PUN/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2008 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-6, Pune …. Vs. Sakal Papers Ltd., 595, Budhawar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaccs7605Q

For Appellant: Shri Ashok KothariFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed in the case of CIT Vs. Best Corporation Ltd. (supra), wherein the High Court held that since it had consistently followed decision in case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 477 (Mad) and on the basis of said decision CBDT had issued Circular No.1 of 2016, dated 15.02.2016 clarifying term ‘initial assessment year’ in section 80IA(5) of the Act, order of Tribunal holding that assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80IA of the Act without setting off losses/unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to windmill, which we…

Dy.CIT, Circle-3(3), Hyderabad vs. M/S Visaka Industries Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 860/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V, AnilkumarFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80GSection 80ISection 80l

…is 30% of eligible profits which is worked out at Rs. 1,73,73,119/- (30% of 5,79,10,397), hence, the excess claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 85,79,135/- was disallowed. 6. The CIT(A), following the decisions i) Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Vs. ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 477 (mad.) and Anil H Lad Vs. DCIT 13 ITR (Tr.) 581 (Ban), on which reliance placed by the assessee, allowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IB by observing that in the decisions cited above, it has been held that losses in preceding years already absorbed against the profit of other business cannot be notionally brought forward and set off a…

M/S Visaka Industries Limited, Secunderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 811/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V, AnilkumarFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80GSection 80ISection 80l

…is 30% of eligible profits which is worked out at Rs. 1,73,73,119/- (30% of 5,79,10,397), hence, the excess claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 85,79,135/- was disallowed. 6. The CIT(A), following the decisions i) Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Vs. ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 477 (mad.) and Anil H Lad Vs. DCIT 13 ITR (Tr.) 581 (Ban), on which reliance placed by the assessee, allowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IB by observing that in the decisions cited above, it has been held that losses in preceding years already absorbed against the profit of other business cannot be notionally brought forward and set off a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Kantilal Hastimal Sancheti, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2421/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 80I

…fore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 340 ITR 477 and on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Serum International Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA Nos. 290 to 292/PN/2010 decided on 28-09-2011 allowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Against the relief granted by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the assessee, the Department is in appeal before…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5318/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainidy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–8(4), Mumbai V/S M/S. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan ……………. Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaacs7934A Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–8(4), Mumbai V/S M/S. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan ……………. Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaacs7934A

For Appellant: Shri Shiv PrakashFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh
Section 80I

…issioner (Appeals) taking note of the fact that while deciding identical issue in assessee’s appeal in assessment year 2011–12, the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Valayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2012] 340 ITR 477 (Mad.) and allowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act without reducing the loss prior to the initial assessment year, followed the same and allowed assessee’s 4 M/s. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act in the impugned assessment year. 6. The learned Departmental Representative,…

The ITO, Ward-5(2), Ahmedabad vs. Parry Enginnering & Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1034/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavसव"ी Izeksn Dqekj Izeksn Dqekj Izeksn Dqekj लेखा सद"य, एवं राजपाल यादव "या"यक सद"य के सम"। Izeksn Dqekj आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1033 & 1034/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Parry Engineering & Ward-3(1)(2), Vs Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. B-608, Nirman Complex, Opp. Havmore Restaurant, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 6747 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr.D.R. Assessee By : Shri G. C. Pipara, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Pipara, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…lowed.” 9. With the assistance of learned Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. We have find that the issue squarely covered by the decision of Madras High Court referred in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills vs. ACIT reported in 340 ITR 477. We deem it pertinent to take note of the relevant discussion made by the Hon’ble Court which reads as under: ITA Nos.1033 & 1034/Ahd/2015 ITO vs. Parry Engineering and Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 - 9 – "80-IA. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enter…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. Parry Enginnering & Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1033/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavसव"ी Izeksn Dqekj Izeksn Dqekj Izeksn Dqekj लेखा सद"य, एवं राजपाल यादव "या"यक सद"य के सम"। Izeksn Dqekj आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1033 & 1034/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Parry Engineering & Ward-3(1)(2), Vs Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. B-608, Nirman Complex, Opp. Havmore Restaurant, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 6747 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr.D.R. Assessee By : Shri G. C. Pipara, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Pipara, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…lowed.” 9. With the assistance of learned Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. We have find that the issue squarely covered by the decision of Madras High Court referred in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills vs. ACIT reported in 340 ITR 477. We deem it pertinent to take note of the relevant discussion made by the Hon’ble Court which reads as under: ITA Nos.1033 & 1034/Ahd/2015 ITO vs. Parry Engineering and Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 - 9 – "80-IA. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enter…

Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue stood dismissed

ITA 923/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.923/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers Dcit 4(3) (P) Ltd., 206 Anand Bhavan, R.No. 649, 6 T H Floor, 17 Babugenu Road, Aaykar Bhavan, V. Princess Street, M K Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacp2213P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal
Section 10Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…le passing the decision in the case of Hercules Hoists I.T.A. No.923/Mum/2016 I.T.A. No.319/Mum/2016 Ltd. (supra) has followed the decision Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd and Sudan Spinning Mills P. Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 477 and it was pleaded deduction u/s. 80IA be allowed without deducting depreciation of earlier years on notional basis. Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the orders of the AO. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We are of the considered view that the depreciation of eligible unit which stood adjusted against other b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. K.J. Infrastructure Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 605/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 80ISection 80l

…r : “1) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in interpreting the provisions of Sec. 80IA(5) as per the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Sipping Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT(2012) 340 ITR 477 whereas the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Microlabs Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT reported in 2015 56 taxmann.com 160 (Karnataka)(2015) 230 taxmann. 647 has on a similar issue held that interpretation of the Madras High Court (Supra) as erroneous since the provisions of Sec. 80IA(5) are Non-obstante and require strict interpretation. 2) On th…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blea.C.I.T. Cc – 8(4) V. M/S. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No: Aaacs 7934 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiv PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Purushotham Kumar
Section 80I

…T(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction U/s. 80IA of the Act without reducing the loss of the earlier years relying on this decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (340 ITR 477) without appreciating the fact that on a similar issue, the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Mohan Breweries & Distilleries (23 SOT 32) has not been 2 M/s. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. accepted by the department and SLP has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court." 2) "On the facts and in the circumstances, of the cas…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Garden Court Distilleries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4784/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledcit-9(3)(2) V. M/S. Garden Court Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Unit No. 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Raheja Plaza, Off. Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Ashok PatilFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 80I

…cules Hoist Ltd. in ITA.No. 707 of 2014 dated 14.06.2017 wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vellayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd and Sudan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [340 ITR 477] held that profit from the eligible 5 ITA NO.4784/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2012-13) & C.O NO.324/MUM/2017 M/s. Garden Court Distilleries Pvt. Ltd business for the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction under section 80IA of the Act has to be computed before deduction of the notionally brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business a…

The DCIT, 5(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Sanwaria Agro Oils Ltd., Bhopal

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 288/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 80I

…lly brought forward and set off against the profits derived from the eligible business in the initial assessment year. 8.7 The Hon’ble Madras High Court had an occasion to consider this issue in the case of Velayuthaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd Vs. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 477 (Mad.). In this case, the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of yarn and electricity generation through wind electric generators and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 admitting a total income of Rs.1,36,36,470 under normal computation and Rs.2,95,73,840 under section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The…

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Empilon Fabrics P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3981/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3981/Mum/2015, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri T. A. KhanFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Sharma
Section 801ASection 801A(5)Section 80I

…case of ACIT vrs. Gold Mine Shares and Finance 116 TTJ 705 for doing so. However, Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the facts had relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spg. Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [20121 340 ITR 477/21 taxmann.com 95 wherein it has been clearly held that where the depreciation and loss of earlier assessment years have already been set off against other business income of those assessment years, there is no need for notionally carrying forward and setting off the same depreciation and loss in computing the quantum of deduction available under…

Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1031/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 116, Bajaj Bhavan Income Tax 11Th Floor, Nariman Point बनाम/ Circle 3(3)(1) Mumbai – 400 021 Aaykar Bhavan Vs. 6Th Floor, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-5093-D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Lal Chand Choudhary,Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Justein,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…ITA No.1031/M/2015 Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Limited Assessment Year 2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ ई ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी महावीर िसंह,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1031/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 116, Bajaj Bhavan Income Tax 11th Floor, Nariman Point बनाम/ Circle 3(3)(1) Mumbai – 400 021 Aaykar Bhavan Vs. 6th Floor, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Blow Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2288/CHNY/2016[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Srinivasan, IRS,JCIT
Section 11BSection 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1750 /Mds/2016 & C.O.No.104/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years :2010-11 The Joint Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Blow Packaging (India) Income Tax (OSD) Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Circle 1(2) No.55-D, SIDCO Industrial Chennai 600 034. Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 098. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2288/Mds/2016, 336 &335/2017 & C.O. Nos. 136/2016, 52…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Blow Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1750/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Srinivasan, IRS,JCIT
Section 11BSection 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1750 /Mds/2016 & C.O.No.104/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years :2010-11 The Joint Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Blow Packaging (India) Income Tax (OSD) Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Circle 1(2) No.55-D, SIDCO Industrial Chennai 600 034. Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 098. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2288/Mds/2016, 336 &335/2017 & C.O. Nos. 136/2016, 52…