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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2021 & Ita No.847/Chny/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs M/S. Rpp Infra Projects Limited, Sf No.454, Ragupathynaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. Pan :Aaacr-9307-E (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, Cit Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2025 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 / 19, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 24.02.2021 / 06.07.2022 For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Admittedly Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, Ay 2012-13 Has Been Taken To Be The Lead Year. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 127 Days In Filing Three Appeals For Ays 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Affidavits By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay & Treat The Reasons As 'Sufficient Cause' & Admit These Appeals For Adjudication.

condone the delay and treat the reasons as 'sufficient cause' and admit these appeals for adjudication. ITA Nos.333 to 335Chny/2021 & 847/Chny/2022 3. The common grounds raised by Revenue for AY 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18 read as under:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-19,Chennai is against facts and circumstances of the case

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

condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3. The common grounds raised by Revenue for AY 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18 read as under:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-19,Chennai is against facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner

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

condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3. The common grounds raised by Revenue for AY 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18 read as under:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-19,Chennai is against facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

delay of ‘28’ days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal filed by the Revenue is taken up for hearing on its merits. 3. The main grievance of the Revenue is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s.80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

ATLAS METAL PROCESSORS P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

condone the delay in filing the above appeals. 3. M/s. Atlas Metal Processors Ltd., the assessee, is a 100% manufacturer-exporter of stainless steel articles. While making the assessment for assessment year 2001-02, the AO restricted the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80HHC by invoking the provisions of section 80IA(9). In the assessment made for the assessment

ATLAS METAL PROCESSORS P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

condone the delay in filing the above appeals. 3. M/s. Atlas Metal Processors Ltd., the assessee, is a 100% manufacturer-exporter of stainless steel articles. While making the assessment for assessment year 2001-02, the AO restricted the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80HHC by invoking the provisions of section 80IA(9). In the assessment made for the assessment

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - 1. The order of the Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law and facts involved and not based on facts and circumstance of the case. 2. Reopening is bad in law: 2.1 The Learned Commissioner

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

delay of ‘16’ days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as that of assessee-company are taken up for hearing on merits. Since the issues involved in these cross appeals were inter related, both these appeals were heard together and are accordingly being disposed off by this common order