ACIT CIRCLE 1, TRICHY vs. DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LTD., DALMIAPURAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Gains of Business or Profession(Not being a loss sustained in speculation Loss is only mentioned. THE LOSS SUCH AS LOSS ON HOUSE PROPERTY/LOSS ON CAPITAL IS NOT INCLUDED. 5.2) Further in the Sec.74 dealing with capital loss, carry forward/set off of capital loss by the amalgamating company/amalgamated company is not discussed and the applicability of the Section is subject

WHEELS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UMIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1604 & 1605/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

gain Rs. 75.56 Lakhs and realized loss Rs. 179.57 lakhs) 5.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in directing the AO that while considering the realized loss Rs. 1,04,01,0020/-, whether the forward contract was in excess of the export turnover of the Appellant and also examine whether there was any premature cancellation of forward contract following

ACIT LTU 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. WHEELS INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1604 & 1605/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

gain Rs. 75.56 Lakhs and realized loss Rs. 179.57 lakhs) 5.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in directing the AO that while considering the realized loss Rs. 1,04,01,0020/-, whether the forward contract was in excess of the export turnover of the Appellant and also examine whether there was any premature cancellation of forward contract following

ACIT LTU 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. WHEELS INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1604 & 1605/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

gain Rs. 75.56 Lakhs and realized loss Rs. 179.57 lakhs) 5.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in directing the AO that while considering the realized loss Rs. 1,04,01,0020/-, whether the forward contract was in excess of the export turnover of the Appellant and also examine whether there was any premature cancellation of forward contract following

WHEELS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UMIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1604 & 1605/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

gain Rs. 75.56 Lakhs and realized loss Rs. 179.57 lakhs) 5.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in directing the AO that while considering the realized loss Rs. 1,04,01,0020/-, whether the forward contract was in excess of the export turnover of the Appellant and also examine whether there was any premature cancellation of forward contract following

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Capital Ratio - Cost of Production Ratio - Exports Turnover Ratio Corporate General OH costs Cost of Production ratio including Consultancy, Rent, Admin etc Research, Design & Product Cost of Production ratio Development cost incurred in R&D center Selling and Distribution costs Domestic / Exports / Total including Advertisement, Turnover ratio Aftermarkets / Spares cost, Service cost, Travel cost, Commission, etc 5.17 Having gone through

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Capital Ratio - Cost of Production Ratio - Exports Turnover Ratio Corporate General OH costs Cost of Production ratio including Consultancy, Rent, Admin etc Research, Design & Product Cost of Production ratio Development cost incurred in R&D center Selling and Distribution costs Domestic / Exports / Total including Advertisement, Turnover ratio Aftermarkets / Spares cost, Service cost, Travel cost, Commission, etc 5.17 Having gone through

TAMILNADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is a one time benefit to encourage industrialization, and provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposively, to make the provision meaningful while granting additional allowance. We are in full agreement with such observations made by the Tribunal.” Finally, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of additional depreciation

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. TAMIL NADU NEWSPRINT & PAPERS LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is a one time benefit to encourage industrialization, and provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposively, to make the provision meaningful while granting additional allowance. We are in full agreement with such observations made by the Tribunal.” Finally, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of additional depreciation

TAMILNADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is a one time benefit to encourage industrialization, and provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposively, to make the provision meaningful while granting additional allowance. We are in full agreement with such observations made by the Tribunal.” Finally, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of additional depreciation

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capitalized The brief facts as noted are that, the assessee had capitalized The brief facts as noted are that, the assessee had capitalized hedging cost of Rs.4,09,82,305/ hedging cost of Rs.4,09,82,305/- in the books of accounts, but claimed in the books of accounts, but claimed the same as expenditure in the computation of total

M/S T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAIVS.ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee are\ndecided as under:-\n\n| ITA Nos\n| Assessment\nYear\nResult\n| IT(TP)A No

32(1)(ii)...”. The Ld. AO rejected the argument of the assessee on the premise that allowance u/s.32AC is available if an assessee acquires and installs a new asset during FY-2013-14 and FY-2014-15 provided the “actual cost” of the new asset exceeds Rs.100 Crores. The Ld. AO premised that the mere capitalization of “Intangible plant

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

iia) of the Act on the same.\nThe Ld. CIT, DR appearing before us are was unable to controvert the\nsame. We therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the order of\nLd. CIT(A) in this regard and accordingly dismiss this ground of the\nRevenue.\"\n5.2\nThe Ld. CIT, DR was not able to distinguish the above

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capitalized & additional depreciation claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act, were not disclosed truly and fully in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, which is the precise requirement of law as can be discerned on reading of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. Thus, in our view, on this score also, the usurpation

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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The Dcit, 98-A, 7Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacs 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

iia) of sub-section (1) in respect of the expenditure referred to in clause (1) which is incurred after the 31st day of March, 2008. 9. The operative phrase here is "on in-house research and development facility as approved by the prescribed authority .......", the word "facility" has been hereby show us to emphasis the point that

INTIMATE FASHIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in IT (TP) A No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleit (Tp) A No.48/Chny/2019 It (Tp) A No.54/Chny/2018 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S.Intimate Fashions (India)- V. The Dcit / Jcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2(2), 517-519, Chennai. Tirupporur Kottamedu High Road, Nandhivaram Village, Guduvancheri-603 202. Kanchipuram District.

Capital Pvt. Ltd., Sri Lanka (in short “M/s.MAS, Sri Lanka"), M/s.Triumph International Overseas Ltd., Liechtenstein (in short “M/s.Triumph") and M/s.Mast Industries Inc., USA (in short “M/s.Mast, USA"). The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of intimate garments, lingerie, briefs, swimwear and other related items and primarily exports the manufactured garments to M/s.Mast, USA. The assessee

INTIMATE FASHIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in IT (TP) A No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleit (Tp) A No.48/Chny/2019 It (Tp) A No.54/Chny/2018 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S.Intimate Fashions (India)- V. The Dcit / Jcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2(2), 517-519, Chennai. Tirupporur Kottamedu High Road, Nandhivaram Village, Guduvancheri-603 202. Kanchipuram District.

Capital Pvt. Ltd., Sri Lanka (in short “M/s.MAS, Sri Lanka"), M/s.Triumph International Overseas Ltd., Liechtenstein (in short “M/s.Triumph") and M/s.Mast Industries Inc., USA (in short “M/s.Mast, USA"). The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of intimate garments, lingerie, briefs, swimwear and other related items and primarily exports the manufactured garments to M/s.Mast, USA. The assessee