ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant assessment years are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. ITA Nos.2670 to 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. By the consent of both the parties

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

depreciation was set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "32", "43(1)", "47", "170", "40(a)(i)", "195", "56(2)(viib

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S SUN EDISON SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation on goodwill as claimed by the assessee for all the three assessment years. 22. The next issue that came up for consideration in the assessment year 2015-16 relates to confirmation of disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. The Assessing Officer has disallowed expenses relating to exempt income under section

M/S SUN EDISON SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation on goodwill as claimed by the assessee for all the three assessment years. 22. The next issue that came up for consideration in the assessment year 2015-16 relates to confirmation of disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. The Assessing Officer has disallowed expenses relating to exempt income under section

M/S SUN EDISON SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 6 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation on goodwill as claimed by the assessee for all the three assessment years. 22. The next issue that came up for consideration in the assessment year 2015-16 relates to confirmation of disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. The Assessing Officer has disallowed expenses relating to exempt income under section

M/S. SUN EDITION SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation on goodwill as claimed by the assessee for all the three assessment years. 22. The next issue that came up for consideration in the assessment year 2015-16 relates to confirmation of disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. The Assessing Officer has disallowed expenses relating to exempt income under section

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

depreciation, and the 5th proviso to Section 32(1) does not restrict this claim. The addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) was deleted as it was not applicable to non-residents. The issue regarding Section 40(a)(i) was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. \n", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled