ITO, CW-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INSPIRISYS SOLUTIONS LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) are against order of even date 29.10.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (NFAC) Delhi [in short ‘’the CIT(A)’’] for 2 ITA Nos.9-11/Chny/2022 & CO Nos. 5-7/Chny/2023 Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016. The assessee has also filed cross objections for the above assessment

ITO,CW-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INSPIRISYS SOLUTIONS LTD, KILPAUK

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) are against order of even date 29.10.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (NFAC) Delhi [in short ‘’the CIT(A)’’] for 2 ITA Nos.9-11/Chny/2022 & CO Nos. 5-7/Chny/2023 Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016. The assessee has also filed cross objections for the above assessment

ITO,CW-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INSPIRISYS SOLUTIONS LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) are against order of even date 29.10.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (NFAC) Delhi [in short ‘’the CIT(A)’’] for 2 ITA Nos.9-11/Chny/2022 & CO Nos. 5-7/Chny/2023 Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016. The assessee has also filed cross objections for the above assessment

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

253,44,00,000, for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, must, therefore, stand deleted. We hold so. Grievance of the assessee, with respect to ALP adjustments on account of accretion in brand value of the AE due to its use by the assessee, is thus upheld. 45. So far as the assessment year

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

253,44,00,000, for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, must, therefore, stand deleted. We hold so. Grievance of the assessee, with respect to ALP adjustments on account of accretion in brand value of the AE due to its use by the assessee, is thus upheld. 45. So far as the assessment year

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

253,44,00,000, for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, must, therefore, stand deleted. We hold so. Grievance of the assessee, with respect to ALP adjustments on account of accretion in brand value of the AE due to its use by the assessee, is thus upheld. 45. So far as the assessment year

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

253,44,00,000, for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, must, therefore, stand deleted. We hold so. Grievance of the assessee, with respect to ALP adjustments on account of accretion in brand value of the AE due to its use by the assessee, is thus upheld. 45. So far as the assessment year

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

253,44,00,000, for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, must, therefore, stand deleted. We hold so. Grievance of the assessee, with respect to ALP adjustments on account of accretion in brand value of the AE due to its use by the assessee, is thus upheld. 45. So far as the assessment year

JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-2, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

depreciation on investment, was never :-18-: ITA. Nos: 620 & 635/Chny/2020 subject matter of assessment order. Hence, we are of the view that enhancement made by CIT(A) on altogether new issue is without authority of law and accordingly, we quash the enhancement. Since we have decided the issue on technical grounds, the issue on merits is left open.” 9.5 Following

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. M/S EMPEE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.841 & 842/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner- V. M/S.Empee Sugars & Of Income Tax, Chemicals Ltd., Central Circle-1(2), 59, Empee Tower, Pudupet, Chennai. Chennai.

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), carryover of depreciation was permitted only for a period of 8 assessment years, as in the case of business loss. As such, according to AO, the assessee’s claim of depreciation of Rs.67,14,004/- for A.Y 1999-2000 only qualifies for brought forward depreciation, whereas the entire income

ACIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S EMPEE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.841 & 842/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner- V. M/S.Empee Sugars & Of Income Tax, Chemicals Ltd., Central Circle-1(2), 59, Empee Tower, Pudupet, Chennai. Chennai.

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), carryover of depreciation was permitted only for a period of 8 assessment years, as in the case of business loss. As such, according to AO, the assessee’s claim of depreciation of Rs.67,14,004/- for A.Y 1999-2000 only qualifies for brought forward depreciation, whereas the entire income

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

REGAN POWERTECH PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-5(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.476/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.570/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, Cit Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 16.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-

253 wherein identical issues are involved. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the provisions of section 41(1) wherein VAT payments earlier claimed as deductions u/s.43B of the Act when got reimbursed, will partake nature of income in the hands of assessee. 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction towards corporate social

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE 5 (1), , CHENNAI vs. REGEN POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.476/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.570/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, Cit Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 16.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-

253 wherein identical issues are involved. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the provisions of section 41(1) wherein VAT payments earlier claimed as deductions u/s.43B of the Act when got reimbursed, will partake nature of income in the hands of assessee. 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction towards corporate social

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING P LTD, TIRUPPUR,TAMILNADU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

4 SCC 297, has held as under: “In the background of what has been urged by the assessee it has to be further seen whether the principles of ejusdem generis have application. The rule is applicable when particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words. In such a case the general words are construed

GEENA GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

4 SCC 297, has held as under: “In the background of what has been urged by the assessee it has to be further seen whether the principles of ejusdem generis have application. The rule is applicable when particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words. In such a case the general words are construed