ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2 DTR (Del) 145) ii) CIT Vs. Common Wealth Trust (P) Ltd & Anr (269 ITR 290)(Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. Easwaran & Sons Engineers Ltd.[Tax Appeal No.596 of 2005 dated 26.09.2011(Madras) (iv) Mewar Suga Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Third Member) (65 ITD 163)(Jaipur Bench) 5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2 DTR (Del) 145) ii) CIT Vs. Common Wealth Trust (P) Ltd & Anr (269 ITR 290)(Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. Easwaran & Sons Engineers Ltd.[Tax Appeal No.596 of 2005 dated 26.09.2011(Madras) (iv) Mewar Suga Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Third Member) (65 ITD 163)(Jaipur Bench) 5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2 DTR (Del) 145) ii) CIT Vs. Common Wealth Trust (P) Ltd & Anr (269 ITR 290)(Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. Easwaran & Sons Engineers Ltd.[Tax Appeal No.596 of 2005 dated 26.09.2011(Madras) (iv) Mewar Suga Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Third Member) (65 ITD 163)(Jaipur Bench) 5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2 DTR (Del) 145) ii) CIT Vs. Common Wealth Trust (P) Ltd & Anr (269 ITR 290)(Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. Easwaran & Sons Engineers Ltd.[Tax Appeal No.596 of 2005 dated 26.09.2011(Madras) (iv) Mewar Suga Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Third Member) (65 ITD 163)(Jaipur Bench) 5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2 DTR (Del) 145) ii) CIT Vs. Common Wealth Trust (P) Ltd & Anr (269 ITR 290)(Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. Easwaran & Sons Engineers Ltd.[Tax Appeal No.596 of 2005 dated 26.09.2011(Madras) (iv) Mewar Suga Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Third Member) (65 ITD 163)(Jaipur Bench) 5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2 DTR (Del) 145) ii) CIT Vs. Common Wealth Trust (P) Ltd & Anr (269 ITR 290)(Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. Easwaran & Sons Engineers Ltd.[Tax Appeal No.596 of 2005 dated 26.09.2011(Madras) (iv) Mewar Suga Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Third Member) (65 ITD 163)(Jaipur Bench) 5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2 DTR (Del) 145) ii) CIT Vs. Common Wealth Trust (P) Ltd & Anr (269 ITR 290)(Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. Easwaran & Sons Engineers Ltd.[Tax Appeal No.596 of 2005 dated 26.09.2011(Madras) (iv) Mewar Suga Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Third Member) (65 ITD 163)(Jaipur Bench) 5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

2 DTR (Del) 145) ii) CIT Vs. Common Wealth Trust (P) Ltd & Anr (269 ITR 290)(Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. Easwaran & Sons Engineers Ltd.[Tax Appeal No.596 of 2005 dated 26.09.2011(Madras) (iv) Mewar Suga Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Third Member) (65 ITD 163)(Jaipur Bench) 5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied

BATLIBOI RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions

DHARMARAJ SHANKAR GANESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CPC , BANGALORE

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions

MR. ABDUL HASSN RIZVI,CHENNAI vs. ADIT,CPC, BANGALORE

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions

ELECTRICAL INDIA,CHENNAI vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions

SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

40A(7)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 10. The next issue arises for consideration is whether the sale of API division is slump sale or not. 6 I.T.A. No.986/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1170/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.738/Mds/10 11. Sh. Pathlavath Peerya

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

40A(7)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 10. The next issue arises for consideration is whether the sale of API division is slump sale or not. 6 I.T.A. No.986/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1170/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.738/Mds/10 11. Sh. Pathlavath Peerya

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

40A(7)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 10. The next issue arises for consideration is whether the sale of API division is slump sale or not. 6 I.T.A. No.986/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1170/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.738/Mds/10 11. Sh. Pathlavath Peerya

SRI JANARTHANA SPINNING MILLS,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

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

b) Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), 3. who vide impugned order partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation on windmill and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s.40A(3) of ITA No.366 /2016 :- 3 -: the Act of "28,17,587/- and disallowance of commission of "2

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

B]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nअपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant by :\nShri. A. Sasikumar, CIT\nप्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent by :\nShri. V. Ravichandran, CA\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024\nघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024\nआदेश /ORDER\nPER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:\nThese appeals filed by the revenue are directed against the common

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

depreciation and cannot constitute income in the hands of the appellant. Even according to the TP order the profit margin of MIPP was 26.67%. Rs.245 Crores remains unpaid to MIPP. Downward adjustment made for two years only (AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15) and that does not match the share premium of Rs.1973.77 crores (Rs.1847.05 crores in RKM + Rs.126.72 crores