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

condone the delay and treat the\nreasons as 'sufficient cause' and admit these appeals for\nadjudication.\nITA Nos.333 to 335Chny/2021 &\n847/Chny/2022\n3. The common grounds raised by Revenue for AY 2012-13,\n2013-14 & 2017-18 read as under:-\n1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax\n(Appeals)-19,Chennai is against facts and circumstances

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

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

condone the delay and treat the\nreasons as 'sufficient cause' and admit these appeals for\nadjudication.\nITA Nos.333 to 335Chny/2021 &\n847/Chny/2022\n3. The common grounds raised by Revenue for AY 2012-13,\n2013-14 & 2017-18 read as under:-\n1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax\n(Appeals)-19,Chennai is against facts and circumstances

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

SG WIND FARM PVT. LTD.,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

801A of the\nAct for which reasons, even though not captured in the computation sheet / search\nassessment order and communicated only in the rejection order passed under Section 154\nof the Act\n20. The CIT(Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the difficulties faced on\naccount of COVID 19 Pandemic and restrictions imposed in relation thereto were\ncompletely overlooked

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