DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

211 Excessive depreciation on additions to buildings disallowed during assessment year 11,84,407 2010-11 Depreciation on plant and machinery disallowed during assessment year 2010-2011 18,80,807 ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 21 -: Being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee- 29. company preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order partly allowed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

211 Excessive depreciation on additions to buildings disallowed during assessment year 11,84,407 2010-11 Depreciation on plant and machinery disallowed during assessment year 2010-2011 18,80,807 ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 21 -: Being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee- 29. company preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order partly allowed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

211 Excessive depreciation on additions to buildings disallowed during assessment year 11,84,407 2010-11 Depreciation on plant and machinery disallowed during assessment year 2010-2011 18,80,807 ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 21 -: Being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee- 29. company preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order partly allowed

SHRIRAM EPC LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

211 Excessive depreciation on additions to buildings disallowed during assessment year 11,84,407 2010-11 Depreciation on plant and machinery disallowed during assessment year 2010-2011 18,80,807 ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 21 -: Being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee- 29. company preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order partly allowed

MAHINDRA WORLD CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the corresponding grounds of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. Nos. 2084, 2085 & 2086/Chny/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13

211 provides that until the Central Government prescribes an accounting standard in consultation with the National Advisory Committee as set up under section 210A of the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a recommendation of the ICAI; the Accounting Standard issued by the ICAI shall prevail. Therefore, we have no difficulty in accepting the submissions of the learned counsel

MAHINDRA WORLD CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the corresponding grounds of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. Nos. 2084, 2085 & 2086/Chny/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13

211 provides that until the Central Government prescribes an accounting standard in consultation with the National Advisory Committee as set up under section 210A of the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a recommendation of the ICAI; the Accounting Standard issued by the ICAI shall prevail. Therefore, we have no difficulty in accepting the submissions of the learned counsel

MAHINDRA WORLD CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the corresponding grounds of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. Nos. 2084, 2085 & 2086/Chny/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13

211 provides that until the Central Government prescribes an accounting standard in consultation with the National Advisory Committee as set up under section 210A of the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a recommendation of the ICAI; the Accounting Standard issued by the ICAI shall prevail. Therefore, we have no difficulty in accepting the submissions of the learned counsel

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. GREENSTAR FERTILIZERS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result , the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35 /Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Green Star Fertilizers Ltd, Income Tax, No.8, Spic House, Corporate Circle-2(1), Mount Road, Guindy, Room No.511, Wanaparthy Block Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aadcg 9451D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 211 of the Companies Act leaves no room for doubt that the Assessee is obliged to follow the accounting standards prescribed to determine business income under the head “business or profession”. We notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra) has observed that AS-11 is mandatory in nature

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. GREENSTAR FERTILIZERS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result , the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35 /Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Green Star Fertilizers Ltd, Income Tax, No.8, Spic House, Corporate Circle-2(1), Mount Road, Guindy, Room No.511, Wanaparthy Block Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aadcg 9451D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 211 of the Companies Act leaves no room for doubt that the Assessee is obliged to follow the accounting standards prescribed to determine business income under the head “business or profession”. We notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra) has observed that AS-11 is mandatory in nature

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. EMERALD RESILIENT TYRE MANUFACTURES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

section 211 of the Companies Act leaves no room for doubt that’ the Assessee is obliged to follow the accounting standards prescribed to determine business income under the head “business or profession”. We notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra) has observed that AS-I I is mandatory in nature

VERSATILE CARD TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,SIDCO,CHROMEPET,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MAIN BUILDING - IV FLOOR, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1392/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Versatile Card Technology Private Principal Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, Chennai -3, Ac-21, 4Th Main Road, Sidco Income Tax Office, Main Industrial Estate, Building, Iv Floor, Thirumudivakkam, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044. [Pan:Aabcv-0567-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Gopal Krishna Raju, Ca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

section 115 JB for any previous assessment years from 2001-02 to 2011-12. 2. This change in depreciation method was as per Accounting Standard - 6 (AS-6) issued by The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. 3. The annual accounts were prepared as per accounting standards issued by the ICAI having statutory recognition under sec 211

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Depreciable assets 1,03,68,211 b) Other assets: Land 47,84,126 Prepaid Expenses 14,35,954 Banked Units 1,00,67,969 Unbilled revenue 7,86,53,504 9,49,41,553 C) Less: Liabilities: Provision for expenses 14,24,593 10,38,85,171 B = a + b - c Net worth C). Capital gains on slum sale

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2003-04 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for AY 2002-03 is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1403 & 1404/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Sree Lakshmi Valli, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 27.03.2015 & 31.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04 Respectively.

depreciation (quantified as per companies act). This mistake was rectified in the present order. Thus, assessee doesn't have a case on merits also. Hence, the ground no. a, b, c, d, e, f and g as set out in grounds of appeal are dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.” 6. We have carefully

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2003-04 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for AY 2002-03 is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1403 & 1404/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Sree Lakshmi Valli, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 27.03.2015 & 31.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04 Respectively.

depreciation (quantified as per companies act). This mistake was rectified in the present order. Thus, assessee doesn't have a case on merits also. Hence, the ground no. a, b, c, d, e, f and g as set out in grounds of appeal are dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.” 6. We have carefully

PALANISAMY RANI,ERODE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

depreciable asset and hence the same has been taxed @ 30% on Rs.41,27,211/- under the short-term capital gain.” Aggrieved by the impugned action of the Ld.PCIT, the assessee is before us. 5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned action of revision by the Ld.PCIT, which amounts to review and not amenable to revisionary jurisdiction and prayed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section. However, in a case where a person makes the investments and he himself executes the development work, i.e. carries out the Civil construction work, he will be eligible for Tax Benefit u/s 801A. In contrast to this, a person who enters into a contract with another person ( i.e. undertaking or enterprise refer to Sec. 80-IA) for executing works

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section. However, in a case where a person makes the investments and he himself executes the development work, i.e. carries out the Civil construction work, he will be eligible for Tax Benefit u/s 801A. In contrast to this, a person who enters into a contract with another person ( i.e. undertaking or enterprise refer to Sec. 80-IA) for executing works

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section. However, in a case where a person makes the investments and he himself executes the development work, i.e. carries out the Civil construction work, he will be eligible for Tax Benefit u/s 801A. In contrast to this, a person who enters into a contract with another person ( i.e. undertaking or enterprise refer to Sec. 80-IA) for executing works