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)

260A of the Act. He submits that the said appeals are pending for hearing along with AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. 9. The ld. CIT- DR vehemently argued that the finding of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LTD., TIRUPUR

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)

260A of the Act. He submits that the said appeals are pending for hearing along with AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. 9. The ld. CIT- DR vehemently argued that the finding of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

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)

260A of the Act. He submits that the said appeals are pending for hearing along with AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. 9. The ld. CIT- DR vehemently argued that the finding of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

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]

Section 14A of the Act cannot be made. Reference can be made to the following decisions (iii) Redington (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, 392 ITR 633, (iv) CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd, 248 Taxman 55. In view of the above judgments, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 62. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

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]

Section 14A of the Act cannot be made. Reference can be made to the following decisions (iii) Redington (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, 392 ITR 633, (iv) CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd, 248 Taxman 55. In view of the above judgments, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 62. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

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]

Section 14A of the Act cannot be made. Reference can be made to the following decisions (iii) Redington (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, 392 ITR 633, (iv) CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd, 248 Taxman 55. In view of the above judgments, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 62. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

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]

Section 14A of the Act cannot be made. Reference can be made to the following decisions (iii) Redington (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, 392 ITR 633, (iv) CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd, 248 Taxman 55. In view of the above judgments, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 62. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

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]

Section 14A of the Act cannot be made. Reference can be made to the following decisions (iii) Redington (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, 392 ITR 633, (iv) CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd, 248 Taxman 55. In view of the above judgments, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 62. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

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]

Section 14A of the Act cannot be made. Reference can be made to the following decisions (iii) Redington (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, 392 ITR 633, (iv) CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd, 248 Taxman 55. In view of the above judgments, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 62. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

260A of the Act and no Substantial Question of Law arises in these Appeals filed by the Revenue. Since the Assessee admittedly entered into contract with Local Bodies or Municipal Bodies for undertaking the contract works for developing the infrastructure-sewage system, he is directly entitled to get the benefit of such deductions under Section 80IA

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

260A of the Act and no Substantial Question of Law arises in these Appeals filed by the Revenue. Since the Assessee admittedly entered into contract with Local Bodies or Municipal Bodies for undertaking the contract works for developing the infrastructure-sewage system, he is directly entitled to get the benefit of such deductions under Section 80IA

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. JOHNSON LIFTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Chny/2024 & Ita No.48/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 32 of the Income Tax Act, depreciation on intangible assets is limited to 25%, contrary to decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dinamalar Vs. ITO, Income Tax Department, Ward 11(1), Tirunelveli (2017) reported in 74 taxmann.com 14 (Madras). ITA No.47/Chny/2024 & ITA No.48/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: 14.The ClT(A) erred in deleting the excess depreciation claimed

DCIT, CHENGALPUT vs. BEST & CROMPTON ENGG. PROJECTS LTD., CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 646/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Income Tax, V. Projects Ltd., Pgp House, 2Nd Floor, Corporate Circle – 1 (2), Chennai – 34. No.57, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34. Pan : Aabcb5248H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 647/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.28, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 1 (2), Ambattur, Chennai - 58. Chennai – 34. Pan : Aaacb2753N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 260A of the Act. Therefore, in order to keep the matter alive, the Revenue has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. D.R., and perused the material available on record. The assessee claimed depreciation

DCIT, CHENGALPUT vs. BEST & CROMPTON ENGG. PROJECTS LTD., CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 646/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Income Tax, V. Projects Ltd., Pgp House, 2Nd Floor, Corporate Circle – 1 (2), Chennai – 34. No.57, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34. Pan : Aabcb5248H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 647/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.28, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 1 (2), Ambattur, Chennai - 58. Chennai – 34. Pan : Aaacb2753N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 260A of the Act. Therefore, in order to keep the matter alive, the Revenue has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. D.R., and perused the material available on record. The assessee claimed depreciation

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Depreciation on Effluent Treatment Plant: 8. It is observed that ld.CIT(A) discussed the said issue in para 10 to 15 of the order. It is also observed that ld.CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence. The ld.DR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence without giving opportunity to the AO. On perusal of the ld.CIT(A)’s order

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Depreciation on Effluent Treatment Plant: 8. It is observed that ld.CIT(A) discussed the said issue in para 10 to 15 of the order. It is also observed that ld.CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence. The ld.DR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence without giving opportunity to the AO. On perusal of the ld.CIT(A)’s order

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Depreciation on Effluent Treatment Plant: 8. It is observed that ld.CIT(A) discussed the said issue in para 10 to 15 of the order. It is also observed that ld.CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence. The ld.DR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence without giving opportunity to the AO. On perusal of the ld.CIT(A)’s order

HI-STYLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIRCLE 2(2)/CIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.910/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 Hi-Style India Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1652 G, 2Nd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 040. Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aacch2545L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Babu Peram, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the second question of law raised also merits consideration. Hence, the substantial questions of law raised in the Tax Case Appeal read as under:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing 100% depreciation

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.587/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. The Willingdon Charitable Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Rani Seethai Hall, No. 603, Anna Salai, Circle, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Chennai 600 006. Building, Iii Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaatt0683N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai, Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: Ground No.1 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case. Ground No:2: 2.1 The Id Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Eligible For Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act & Not Hit By The Amended Provisions Of Sec.2(15) Of The Act, Under The Object Of "General Public Utility".

depreciation, when the cost of acquisition of assets were treated as application of income; as held by the Apex Court / High Courts in the following cases (i) M/s. Nectar Beverages Limited Vs CIT 314 ITR 314.· (ii) M/s. J.K Synthetics Limited (65 Taxman 420) (iii) Lissie Medical Institutions Vs CIT 348 ITR 344 (Ker). (iv) DIT Vs. Ms/. Charanjiv Charitable