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. 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

AGNI STEELS PVT. LTD.,ERODE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

801A deduction claimed by the assessee and brought to tax. b) It was noticed from the copy of the receipt dated 20.07.2013 issued by the TNEB that the assessee had paid Rs.61,91,510/- towards payment of estimate cost (Rs.500 towards registration fee and Rs.61,91,010 towards estimate charges) for the provision of dedicated feeder line. The assessee