ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

3) excluded the application of Section 81 to private companies. As a result, under Companies Act, 1956, private companies were free to allot shares to any persons at differential prices and on differential rights. In accordance with Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 appellant filed all the returns of allotment with RoC. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs have taken

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

depreciation was denied by the AO in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19\nalso. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the\ncaptioned appeals before us.\n6. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the\ncaptioned appeals before us.\n7. The assessee made detailed submissions against the above\nadjustments during the hearing

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

depreciation was denied by the AO in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19\nalso. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the\ncaptioned appeals before us.\n\n6.\nAgainst the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the\ncaptioned appeals before us.\n\n7.\nThe assessee made detailed submissions against the above\nadjustments during

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

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATIONLIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon as claimed by the assessee in earlier years. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the same. 11. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act and was reopened for the purpose

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon as claimed by the assessee in earlier years. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the same. 11. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act and was reopened for the purpose

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ITO, CUDDALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon as claimed by the assessee in earlier years. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the same. 11. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act and was reopened for the purpose

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD., NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon as claimed by the assessee in earlier years. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the same. 11. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act and was reopened for the purpose

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon as claimed by the assessee in earlier years. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the same. 11. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act and was reopened for the purpose

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

3) excluded the application of\nSection 81 to private companies. As a result, under\nCompanies Act, 1956, private companies were free to allot\nshares to any persons at differential prices and on\ndifferential rights. In accordance with Section 75 of the\nCompanies Act, 1956 appellant filed all the returns of\nallotment with RoC. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs have\ntaken

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

249 ITR 795 (SC), wherein it was held as under:- "The High Court has answered the question saying that when section 79 speaks of loss, it does not include unabsorbed depreciation or unabsorbed development rebate. We agree with the High Court." In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Subhulaxmi Mills

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.

249/- is less than the threshold limit of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) as amended vide Finance Act, 2021 read with CBDT Instruction No.01/2022, therefore, the case cannot be subjected to reassessment proceedings and is barred by limitation. 16. The ld.Counsel further AO initiated

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

249\n(Del. ITAT)\n\n- 19 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

249\n(Del. ITAT)\n- Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n• Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support\nservices

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

249\n(Del. ITAT)\nO Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\nO Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support\nservices

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

249\n(Del. ITAT)\n\n- 19 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para