HARITA FEHRER LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (2),, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

section 36(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, by following the decision of Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd Vs CIT (323 ITR 397).” 3. As is evident, the issues that fall for our consideration in this year are – (i) Depreciation on non-complete Fees; (ii) Applicable Rate of depreciation on computer software; (iii) Claim

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

section 36(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, by following the decision of Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd Vs CIT (323 ITR 397).” 3. As is evident, the issues that fall for our consideration in this year are – (i) Depreciation on non-complete Fees; (ii) Applicable Rate of depreciation on computer software; (iii) Claim

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

section 36(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, by following the decision of Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd Vs CIT (323 ITR 397).” 3. As is evident, the issues that fall for our consideration in this year are – (i) Depreciation on non-complete Fees; (ii) Applicable Rate of depreciation on computer software; (iii) Claim

PRECOT LIMITED ,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.132/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Precot Limited Sf No.559/4, D Block, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, Hanudev Info Park, Nava India Road Corporate Circle-2, Udaiyampalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 028. Pan : Aabcp 3038K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act disallowed above payments. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) confirmed action of the Assessing Officer. 5. We noted that this issue is now settled by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Checkmate Services P.Ltd Vs. CIT in Civil Appellate

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

VA Tech India at Indonesia and Muscat for the purpose of making or earning any income from a source outside India, it is not an income earned in India as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and hence the question of deduction of tax does not arise. The transmission Corporation of India case applies to those situations where

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

VA Tech India at Indonesia and Muscat for the purpose of making or earning any income from a source outside India, it is not an income earned in India as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and hence the question of deduction of tax does not arise. The transmission Corporation of India case applies to those situations where

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

capital\nexpenditure of Rs.5,56,722/-. The Ld AR accordingly submitted that, the\nfacts on record showed that, the entire surplus from the petrol bunk of\nRs.73,27,209/- had been applied towards the educational activities,\nnamely the music school and library activities of the assessee Trust. In\nlight of these facts, the Ld AR gave us a brief overview

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. NAPC PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

capital assets or for\nworking\ncapital purposes.\n5. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of\ngrounds that may be raised during: the course of the appeal\nproceedings, the order of learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of\nthe Assessing Officer be restored.”\n3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2663/Chny/2025 धििाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2021-22

capital unit. Therefore, the ld. DR argued that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be directly applied in assessee's case. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sanghi Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA No.104/Hyd/2022 dated 23.01.2025] has considered an identical issue and held that the rate

TAMILNADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.88/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 10, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Income Tax/Ito, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aabct0551H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Selva Moorthy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 16.11.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Addl./Jcit(A), Varanasi] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A) In Treating Employees’ Pf Contribution As Income By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No.88/Chny/24 3. We note that the assessee remitted employees’ PF contribution within the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The CPC disallowed the said amount for not depositing the same within due date as prescribed under relevant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. Further, sub-section (2) of section 80IA states that the deduction specified in sub-section (1) may, at the option of the assessee, be claimed by him for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning from the year in which the undertaking or the enterprise develops

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. Further, sub-section (2) of section 80IA states that the deduction specified in sub-section (1) may, at the option of the assessee, be claimed by him for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning from the year in which the undertaking or the enterprise develops