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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

7. The CIT(Appeals) observed that according to the AO, the assessee has not proved the existence of any business compulsion or commercial expediency warranting making such huge advances commensurate with the returns received from 15 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the sister concerns. Since the funds are interest bearing which are placed at the disposal of sister concerns

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

7. The CIT(Appeals) observed that according to the AO, the assessee has not proved the existence of any business compulsion or commercial expediency warranting making such huge advances commensurate with the returns received from 15 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the sister concerns. Since the funds are interest bearing which are placed at the disposal of sister concerns

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

7. The CIT(Appeals) observed that according to the AO, the assessee has not proved the existence of any business compulsion or commercial expediency warranting making such huge advances commensurate with the returns received from 15 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the sister concerns. Since the funds are interest bearing which are placed at the disposal of sister concerns

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

capital exp. to Rs. 1,31,82,06,765, thereby disallowing a claim of Rs. 40,21,77,735. 5.3. The CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have appreciated that the CIT(A)-NFAC cannot disallow deduction claimed by the Appellant in respect of weighted deduction on R&D expenditure as approved by DSIR. Once such expenditure has been quantified

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

7 -: submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) for the AY 2007-08 which is extracted from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in Para No.5 as under: a. The lignite is excavated at level of, where the water intrusion and force will be at high rate. The observation bore wells are dug around to the spot of lignite excavating area

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

7 -: submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) for the AY 2007-08 which is extracted from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in Para No.5 as under: a. The lignite is excavated at level of, where the water intrusion and force will be at high rate. The observation bore wells are dug around to the spot of lignite excavating area

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

7 -: submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) for the AY 2007-08 which is extracted from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in Para No.5 as under: a. The lignite is excavated at level of, where the water intrusion and force will be at high rate. The observation bore wells are dug around to the spot of lignite excavating area

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

7 -: submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) for the AY 2007-08 which is extracted from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in Para No.5 as under: a. The lignite is excavated at level of, where the water intrusion and force will be at high rate. The observation bore wells are dug around to the spot of lignite excavating area

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

7 -: submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) for the AY 2007-08 which is extracted from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in Para No.5 as under: a. The lignite is excavated at level of, where the water intrusion and force will be at high rate. The observation bore wells are dug around to the spot of lignite excavating area

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. 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

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

7%, 9%, 21% and 17% in the assessment years\n2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. In\nthe assessment year 2012-13, there was a small reduction in revenue\nby 3% from Rs.64,21,36,965/- to Rs.62,32,14,978/-. Revenue from\nthe new Unit in the said year was Rs.60

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

7%, 9%, 21% and 17% in the assessment years\n2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. In\nthe assessment year 2012-13, there was a small reduction in revenue\nby 3% from Rs.64,21,36,965/- to Rs.62,32,14,978/-. Revenue from\nthe new Unit in the said year was Rs.60