DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital gain against which the assessee could not claim deduction under Chapter VIA. For the AY 2010-11, the assessee has paid the tax under normal provisions. On the basis of the above facts, the assessee claimed the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act to the extent of ₹ 8,05,21,425/- while computing the income liable for taxation

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LTU 2 (IC), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

801A(5) in unambiguous terms: The important factors are to be noted in sub-section (5) and they are as under : "(1) t starts with a non obstante clause which means it overrides all the provisions of the Act and other provisions are to be ignored ; (2) It is for the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction

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

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 RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

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

gains derived from such business for\nten consecutive assessment years. Further, sub-section (2) of section\n80IA states that the deduction specified in sub-section (1) may, at the\noption of the assessee, be claimed by him for any ten consecutive\n assessment years out of fifteen years beginning from the year in which\nthe undertaking or the enterprise develops

DCIT , COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED , ERODE

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

gains derived from such business for\nten consecutive assessment years. Further, sub-section (2) of section\n80IA states that the deduction specified in sub-section (1) may, at the\noption of the assessee, be claimed by him for any ten consecutive\n assessment years out of fifteen years beginning from the year in which\nthe undertaking or the enterprise develops

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Section 801A(S) as per the Special Bench decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of M/s.Goldmine Shares & Finance Private Ltd (2008) 113 1TD 209. 4.3 The learned CIT(A) ought to have- appreciated the fact that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Private Limited

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital cost of the plant and norms of Operation of the applicable CERC (Terms & Conditions of the Tariff Regulations) and is filed before CERC as per the stipulated procedures. • Copies of the petitions filed are sent to the Respondent beneficiaries. • Any additional information sought by CERC is filed with a copy to the Respondents. • CERC issues Record of proceedings

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital cost of the plant and norms of Operation of the applicable CERC (Terms & Conditions of the Tariff Regulations) and is filed before CERC as per the stipulated procedures. • Copies of the petitions filed are sent to the Respondent beneficiaries. • Any additional information sought by CERC is filed with a copy to the Respondents. • CERC issues Record of proceedings

NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital cost of the plant and norms of Operation of the applicable CERC (Terms & Conditions of the Tariff Regulations) and is filed before CERC as per the stipulated procedures. • Copies of the petitions filed are sent to the Respondent beneficiaries. • Any additional information sought by CERC is filed with a copy to the Respondents. • CERC issues Record of proceedings

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital cost of the plant and norms of Operation of the applicable CERC (Terms & Conditions of the Tariff Regulations) and is filed before CERC as per the stipulated procedures. • Copies of the petitions filed are sent to the Respondent beneficiaries. • Any additional information sought by CERC is filed with a copy to the Respondents. • CERC issues Record of proceedings

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital cost of the plant and norms of Operation of the applicable CERC (Terms & Conditions of the Tariff Regulations) and is filed before CERC as per the stipulated procedures. • Copies of the petitions filed are sent to the Respondent beneficiaries. • Any additional information sought by CERC is filed with a copy to the Respondents. • CERC issues Record of proceedings

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

gains of development of infrastructural facilities. 4.2 The Honble DRP ought to have appreciated that some of the works executed by the assessee were related to expansion of already existing infrastructure facilities, which does not satisfy the condition that, for claiming deduction u/s 801A, the infrastructure projects should be a new one. 4.3 The Hon'ble DRP failed to appreciate

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

gains of development of infrastructural facilities. 4.2 The Honble DRP ought to have appreciated that some of the works executed by the assessee were related to expansion of already existing infrastructure facilities, which does not satisfy the condition that, for claiming deduction u/s 801A, the infrastructure projects should be a new one. 4.3 The Hon'ble DRP failed to appreciate

WHEELS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-2, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

801A(5)". During the course of the appellate proceedings, the AR submitted that his claim be considered as per the ruling of the hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 477(Mad). The Apex Court, in their order dated 5.9.2016, affirmed the view that loss

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

capitalized on\n01.04.2014 is considered, the ratio of transferred machinery in LU2 will be\nless than 20%. In this connection, the assessee tabulates below the relevant\ndetails, to substantiate that the ratio of second-hand machinery is less than\n20% as on the date of commencement of production:\nNew purchases for\nLU2 including\nCapital WIP\ncapitalized on\nApril

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

capitalized on\n01.04.2014 is considered, the ratio of transferred machinery in LU2 will be\nless than 20%. In this connection, the assessee tabulates below the relevant\ndetails, to substantiate that the ratio of second-hand machinery is less than\n20% as on the date of commencement of production:\n\nNew purchases for\nLU2 including\nCapital WIP\ncapitalized on\nApril

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. NLC INDIA LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

801A in respect of TPS-l expansion unit by placing reliance on its ITAT order in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2001-02 and 2008- 09 to 2010-li. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the depreciation @ 60% on UPS holding it as part of computer as against 15% allowed by the Assessing officer