DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

SHRIRAM EPC LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

SHRIRAM EPC LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section

FORD INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. DY CIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated and relied on by the following judicial precedents — • CIT v. Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. [2014] 228 taxman 359 (Gujarat High Court) • Arc Fine Chemicals

FORD INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. DY CIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated and relied on by the following judicial precedents — • CIT v. Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. [2014] 228 taxman 359 (Gujarat High Court) • Arc Fine Chemicals

VNC STEEL DISTRIBUTORS,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1937/Chny/2024 & Stay Petition No: 40/Chny/2024 [In Ita No: 1937/Chny/2024)] िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vnc Steel Distributors, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, S. Vellalapatti, Circle -1(1), Karur – 639 004. Trichy. [Pan: Aadfv-9137-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 40(a)(ia) is made on this amount (Rs.8,37,642) which is calculated at Rs.2,51,292.60 4.6.2 Non Deduction of TDS on Advertisement and Promotional on promotional schemes Dealers Expenditure - Incentive paid to (Rs.10,13,32

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

TDS, TCS and advance tax claimed by the Appellant in its return of income.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, rescind, forgo or withdraw any\nof the above grounds of objection either before or during the course of the CIT (Appeal)\nproceedings in the interest of natural justice.\nITA No.: 1763/CHNY/2024 AY 2017-18\n1. The order

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

TDS, TCS and advance tax claimed by the Appellant in its return of income.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, rescind, forgo or withdraw any\nof the above grounds of objection either before or during the course of the CIT (Appeal)\nproceedings in the interest of natural justice.\nITA No.: 1763/CHNY/2024 AY 2017-18\n1. The order

SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

32(1)(iia) of the Act where the asset is acquired and put to use by the assessee for the purpose of business for a period of less one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this subsection shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.8) The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

32(1)(iia) of the Act where the asset is acquired and put to use by the assessee for the purpose of business for a period of less one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this subsection shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.8) The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

32(1)(iia) of the Act where the asset is acquired and put to use by the assessee for the purpose of business for a period of less one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this subsection shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.8) The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

32(1)(iia) of the Act where the asset is acquired and put to use by the assessee for the purpose of business for a period of less one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this subsection shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.8) The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

AVINASH KISHORE HEMDEV,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2421, 2422, 2423; 2424, 2425, 2426, 2427; 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431 & 2432/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1] Avinash Kishore Hemdev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 21, 1St Street, Haddows Road, Tds Ward 1(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aamph1666B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Bunch Of 12 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 04.06.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1].

TDS quarterly returns filed by the assessee under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levied late filing fee under section 234E of the Act for the delay in filing the said statements for the assessment years under consideration. The assessee has challenged the levy of late filing fee under section 234E

AVINASH KISHORE HEMDEV,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2421, 2422, 2423; 2424, 2425, 2426, 2427; 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431 & 2432/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1] Avinash Kishore Hemdev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 21, 1St Street, Haddows Road, Tds Ward 1(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aamph1666B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Bunch Of 12 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 04.06.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1].

TDS quarterly returns filed by the assessee under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levied late filing fee under section 234E of the Act for the delay in filing the said statements for the assessment years under consideration. The assessee has challenged the levy of late filing fee under section 234E