JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INDIAN BANK, CHENNAI

depreciation which have been adopted for\npreparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such financial year\nor part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year.\n\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a company other than\nreferred to in Clause (b). According to clause (a), for the purpose

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INDIAN BANK, CHENNAI

depreciation which have been adopted for\npreparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such financial year\nor part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a company other than\nreferred to in Clause (b). According to clause (a), for the purpose of Section

YUGENDIRAN VISHNUPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year in the case of an assessee if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153. A pre-condition to initiate proceedings under Section 147 is the issuance of notice under

YUGENDIRAN VISHNUPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year in the case of an assessee if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153. A pre-condition to initiate proceedings under Section 147 is the issuance of notice under

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year in the case of an assessee if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153. A pre-condition to initiate proceedings under Section 147 is the issuance of notice under

MAHASAKTHI BIO ENERCON PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:467/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, No.64, Dr. Nanjappa Road, Central Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 018. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aabci-0022-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T.

151 was digitally signed by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the point of time when the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 148, he was having no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act, 1961. Consequently the impugned notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act, 1961 were without jurisdiction

INDUSTRIAL MINERAL CO, 100%EOU,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation component, the net gap was Rs.41.87 Crores. The difference of Rs.32 Crores was nothing but transfer from VV through Arbitration. The remaining difference was on account of difference in closing stock valuation, discrepancy in other income & expenses which has been tabulated at para-131 of the assessment order. Accordingly, Ld. AO added the remaining component of Rs.9.87 Crores

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. M/S INDUSTRIAL MINERAL CO., 100% EOU, TUTICORIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation component, the net gap was Rs.41.87 Crores. The difference of Rs.32 Crores was nothing but transfer from VV through Arbitration. The remaining difference was on account of difference in closing stock valuation, discrepancy in other income & expenses which has been tabulated at para-131 of the assessment order. Accordingly, Ld. AO added the remaining component of Rs.9.87 Crores

AGILE ELECTRIC SUB ASSEMBLY (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2497/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

2(1B) and 72A. We are conscious that the same may not be of much consequence in relation to loss in-as- much as we have upheld the application of s. 79 in the instant case, so that the claim for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed loss would in any case stand to be disallowed. So, however

RENAULT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Depreciation 2,67,72,822 Add: Interest 3,73,57,238 Less: Cost of design 11,63,79,436 engineering and related services Less: TP adj in 62,26,00,000 RNAIPL Adjusted cost 5,25,21,14,115 Net Loss -1,70,38,02,781 Net loss on Revenue -48.02% :- 9 -: Computation of TP adjustment Particulars Reference Amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

2. 13. In view of the above findings and relying on the judicial\npronouncements as discussed above, the penalty levied consequence to the\nissue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

2. 13. In view of the above findings and relying on the judicial\npronouncements as discussed above, the penalty levied consequence to the\nissue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

2. 13. In view of the above findings and relying on the judicial\npronouncements as discussed above, the penalty levied consequence to the\nissue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

2. 13. In view of the above findings and relying on the judicial\npronouncements as discussed above, the penalty levied consequence to the\nissue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

2. 13. In view of the above findings and relying on the judicial\npronouncements as discussed above, the penalty levied consequence to the\nissue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

2. 13. In view of the above findings and relying on the judicial\npronouncements as discussed above, the penalty levied consequence to the\nissue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation of new plant and royalty paid to holding company. 12. Per contra, the CIT-DR, Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, the AO has failed to verify and make necessary enquiries in terms of clause (a) to Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act. She further argued that on the royalty issue is covered in favour of the Revenue