PLR TEXTILES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT ,CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 133/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Plr Textiles Ltd., The Acit, 8K, Century Plaza, V. Corporate Circle -5(2), 560-562, Mount Road, Chennai – 641 034. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacp-6536-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, Vide Ita No.153/Cit(A)-3/2018-19For The Assessment Year 2005-06, Dated 13.03.2020. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee, Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Hearing Both The :-2-:

50B) for a consideration of Rs.9.70 cores. The sale consideration was settled by taking over the liabilities of the undertaking at Rs.8.69 crores and balance being settled by allotment of share with a face value of Rs.100.00 lakhs. (application for allotment is at page 22 and 25 of the paper book 1). :-6-: ITA. No:133/Chny/2021  The undertaking was transferred

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

50B of the Act relating to slump sale were also not\napplicable to the facts of the case, inasmuch as the conversion was not in the\nnature of a sale but was a statutory reorganisation expressly contemplated\nunder section 47(xiv) of the Act.\n64. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that there is no dispute with regard to\nthe fact

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. HUCLIN RESEARCH LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1238/Chny/2019 & C.O.No.97/Chny/2019 [In Ita No.1238/Chny/2019] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs M/S. Huclin Research Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), 42, Jamal Sonu Terrace Loganathan Nagar,1St Street Corporate Circle-2(2) 512, Wanaparthy Block 100 Ft.Road, Choolaimedu Chennai-34. Chennai-600 094. Pan: Aabch 6465L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector)

capital gains on transfer of undertaking in terms of section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, we are inclined to uphold findings of the learned CIT(A) and reject grounds raised by the revenue. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. C.O.No.97/Chny/2019:- 10. The cross objection filed by the assessee supports order

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 147 of the Act and hence, the reopening is bad in law and (ii) the second issue raised is that the assessee filed complete details before AO during original assessment proceedings and hence, there is change of opinion in reopening of assessment on the same set of facts because no new material is brought on record for reopening

T.A.TAYLOR PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. T.A. Taylor Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.10/5, Royal Enclave, Income Tax, Besant Avenue Road, Corporate Circle 3(1) Adyar, Chennai. Chennai 600 020. [Pan Aaact 4165G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) which deals with computation of capital gains in a case of slump sale is reproduced hereunder:- ‘’(1

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are 22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1388/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital gains on sale of asset "10,49,12,310/- being difference in value of sale consideration "12,96,00,000/- and net worth of assets transferred "2,46,87,690/-. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that as per Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clarion Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd the sale of ‘’project assets’’, being land and windmill

CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are 22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1388/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital gains on sale of asset "10,49,12,310/- being difference in value of sale consideration "12,96,00,000/- and net worth of assets transferred "2,46,87,690/-. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that as per Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clarion Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd the sale of ‘’project assets’’, being land and windmill

PROFILE GEARS & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.286/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

1 crore to M/s SRP Tools Ltd, which the assessee treated as ‘’Slump Sale’’ u/s. 50B. Proceedings u/s.263 was initiated and the CIT-III vide order in C.No.3033/12/III/2010-11 dated 07.03.2011 directed the Assessing Officer to set aside the original assessment order and pas a fresh order in accordance with law. In order to complete the assessment proceedings u/s.263

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. AATHMIKA HOLDINGS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capital gain or was the net worth presumed to be NIL (since negative). It is observed that the Tribunal took note of the formula prescribed for calculating ‘net-worth’ which was ‘all assets minus all liabilities of the undertaking’. Having regard to the express language used in the provisions of Section 50B, it was therefore held that the calculation methodology

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

RANI PRINTERS P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.757/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Rani Printers Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 1091, Evr High Road, V. Income Tax, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. Company Circle V(3), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 1416 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

50B of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer on examination of records, found that the transaction cannot be considered as slump sale. At the best, according to the Ld. D.R., it can be considered as sale of trademark and other commercial rights under Section 50 of the Act, therefore, the capital gain has to be assessed since the return

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. DRS INDUSTRIES LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2727/Mds/2016 & C.O. No.176/Mds/2016 (In I.T.A. No.2727/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

50B(1) of the Act, profit arising from slump sale was chargeable to tax as capital gains arising from transfer of long-term capital assets. The A.O. also noted that the assessee had not filed audit report in Form No.3CEA as mandated under Section

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

1)\nwhich in clear terms lays down that tax at source is deductible only from\n\"sums chargeable\" under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, i.e.,\nchargeable under sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Income-tax Act.\"\n8.5\nIn view of the above decision (supra), the contention raised by the\nLd. CIT, DR fails. For the reasons

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PRUDENTIAL SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITOOR

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2298/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Prudential Sugar Corporation Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Ltu, Circle -1, Prudential Nagar, Chennai. Koppedu Post, Nindra, Mandal – 517 587. [Pan:Aaacp-4338-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

1) dt. 22.04.2024 for the Assessment year 2018-19 is erroneous in law, facts and circumstances of the case. :-2-: ITA. No.:2298/Chny/2024 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.24 crores made by the AO wherein the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains by issuing\ncompany in the garb of capital receipts. In the instant case, not only that the\nfair market value is supported by independent valuer report, the allotment\nhas been made to the existing shareholder holding 100% equity and\ntherefore, there is no change in the interest or control over the money by\nsuch issuance of shares. The object

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , SALEM vs. M/S AVR SWARNAMAHAL JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

1. Aforesaid appeals by Revenue for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 arises out of separate orders of learned first appellate authority. The impugned order is common order for AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12 which is passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem [CIT(A)] on 22-11-2017 in the matter of assessments framed