MAHENDRA KUMAR DAMANI,VIRUTHUNAGAR vs. ADIT(CPC), BENGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.805 & 806/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2019-20 Mr.Mahendra Kumar Damani, V. The Asst. Director Of- 7/5, Velayutham Rastha, Sivakasi, Income Tax, Virudhunagar District-626 123. Cpc, Bangalore.

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY FUTURE SOFT PRIVATE LIMITED), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 V. The Acit, Capgemini Technology Corporate Circle-1(1), Services India Ltd., Block 3, ‘C’ Wing, 4Th Floor, Chennai. Capgemini Knowledge Park, Airoli Knowledge Park, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 708. [Pan: Aaacf 0482 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

4 :: was not filed by the assessee along with the return of income. The said report was filed subsequently on01.03.2022. The deduction claimed u/s 10AA was disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ASTROTECH STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1150/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Astrotech Steels Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1) 19, Ii Floor, Right Wing, Ghatala Towers, Chennai. Avenue Road, Nungambakkam Vs. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakca-0128-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

4 Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jayanthilal Patel (2001) (248 ITR 199) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Web Commerce India Pvt. Ltd (2009) (318 ITR 135) to support the submissions. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of Kolkata

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3556 & 3557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Skm Egg Products Export (I) Ltd., Income Tax Circle 1, Vs. No. 185, Chennimalai Road, No. 15, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001. Erode 638 001. [Pan: Aaccs7160G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, Pcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Both Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. In Both The Appeals, The Revenue Has Raised Following Common Grounds: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Is Right In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order U/S 154 Of A.O. Dated 13.02.2018 Directing To Allow Set Off Of Available Brought Forward Unabsorbed 'Depreciation Losses After Giving Effect To The Order Of The Cit(A) In The Assessee'S Own Case For The A.Y. 2008-09?

4. Coming to the rejection of claim of depreciation, in the original assessment order dated 31.12.2010, the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee began to manufacture in the assessment year 1997-98, for the purpose of section 10B

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3556 & 3557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Skm Egg Products Export (I) Ltd., Income Tax Circle 1, Vs. No. 185, Chennimalai Road, No. 15, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001. Erode 638 001. [Pan: Aaccs7160G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, Pcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Both Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. In Both The Appeals, The Revenue Has Raised Following Common Grounds: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Is Right In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order U/S 154 Of A.O. Dated 13.02.2018 Directing To Allow Set Off Of Available Brought Forward Unabsorbed 'Depreciation Losses After Giving Effect To The Order Of The Cit(A) In The Assessee'S Own Case For The A.Y. 2008-09?

4. Coming to the rejection of claim of depreciation, in the original assessment order dated 31.12.2010, the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee began to manufacture in the assessment year 1997-98, for the purpose of section 10B

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

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

depreciation was denied by the AO in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 also. 6. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the captioned appeals before us. 7. The assessee made detailed submissions against the above adjustments during the hearing dated 10.09.2024 and the captioned appeals were disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated

CORNET TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.257, 258 & 259/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2010-11 & 2011-12

depreciation of the non-eligible unit cannot be set off against the profit of the eligible unit while computing deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The Ld. representative 3 I.T.A. Nos.257 to 259/Mds/16 placed his reliance on various judgments of High Courts to support his claim. 3. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that for the assessment

CORNET TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.257, 258 & 259/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2010-11 & 2011-12

depreciation of the non-eligible unit cannot be set off against the profit of the eligible unit while computing deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The Ld. representative 3 I.T.A. Nos.257 to 259/Mds/16 placed his reliance on various judgments of High Courts to support his claim. 3. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that for the assessment

CORNET TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.257, 258 & 259/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2010-11 & 2011-12

depreciation of the non-eligible unit cannot be set off against the profit of the eligible unit while computing deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The Ld. representative 3 I.T.A. Nos.257 to 259/Mds/16 placed his reliance on various judgments of High Courts to support his claim. 3. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that for the assessment

ALAGUMALAI IMPEX PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 10B of the Act was to be allowed without setting off of brought forward unabsorbed loss and unabsorbed depreciation from the 4

M/S. ALAGUMALAI IMPEX PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 10B of the Act was to be allowed without setting off of brought forward unabsorbed loss and unabsorbed depreciation from the 4

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ALAGUMALAI IMPEX P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 10B of the Act was to be allowed without setting off of brought forward unabsorbed loss and unabsorbed depreciation from the 4

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

depreciation was denied by the AO in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 also. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the captioned appeals before us. 6. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the captioned appeals before us. 7. The assessee made detailed submissions against the above adjustments during the hearing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

10B units from the normal taxable units. The Ld.AR also relied on the following decisions: 1. Lason India (Vetri Software) Vs. ITO (301 ITR 306) 2. Scientific Atlanta India Technology vs. CIT (129 TTJ 273) (Chennai) 3. CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385) (Kar HC) 4. Brakes India (266/Mds/2012) (Chennai) ITA No.351/Mds/2013 & ITA Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 ITA Nos.203

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

10B units from the normal taxable units. The Ld.AR also relied on the following decisions: 1. Lason India (Vetri Software) Vs. ITO (301 ITR 306) 2. Scientific Atlanta India Technology vs. CIT (129 TTJ 273) (Chennai) 3. CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385) (Kar HC) 4. Brakes India (266/Mds/2012) (Chennai) ITA No.351/Mds/2013 & ITA Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 ITA Nos.203

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

10B units from the normal taxable units. The Ld.AR also relied on the following decisions: 1. Lason India (Vetri Software) Vs. ITO (301 ITR 306) 2. Scientific Atlanta India Technology vs. CIT (129 TTJ 273) (Chennai) 3. CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385) (Kar HC) 4. Brakes India (266/Mds/2012) (Chennai) ITA No.351/Mds/2013 & ITA Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 ITA Nos.203

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

10B units from the normal taxable units. The Ld.AR also relied on the following decisions: 1. Lason India (Vetri Software) Vs. ITO (301 ITR 306) 2. Scientific Atlanta India Technology vs. CIT (129 TTJ 273) (Chennai) 3. CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385) (Kar HC) 4. Brakes India (266/Mds/2012) (Chennai) ITA No.351/Mds/2013 & ITA Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 ITA Nos.203

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

10B units from the normal taxable units. The Ld.AR also relied on the following decisions: 1. Lason India (Vetri Software) Vs. ITO (301 ITR 306) 2. Scientific Atlanta India Technology vs. CIT (129 TTJ 273) (Chennai) 3. CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385) (Kar HC) 4. Brakes India (266/Mds/2012) (Chennai) ITA No.351/Mds/2013 & ITA Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 ITA Nos.203

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

10B units from the normal taxable units. The Ld.AR also relied on the following decisions: 1. Lason India (Vetri Software) Vs. ITO (301 ITR 306) 2. Scientific Atlanta India Technology vs. CIT (129 TTJ 273) (Chennai) 3. CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385) (Kar HC) 4. Brakes India (266/Mds/2012) (Chennai) ITA No.351/Mds/2013 & ITA Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 ITA Nos.203