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. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine new evidence, introduced at the appellate stage under Rule 46A remand report was not called for under section

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. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine new evidence, introduced at the appellate stage under Rule 46A remand report was not called for under section

M/S. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 28- (i) to (ii)… 3 ITA Nos. 1858 & 1980/Mds/2011 (AY 2004-05) Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (iii) the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession: Provided that any amount of the interest paid, in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset (whether capitalised in the books

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. S. RAJENDRAN, CHITHARAL

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation disallowance by the CIT(A) was also upheld.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "68", "46A", "263", "144B

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

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3318/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. A B Mauri India Private Ltd, Income Tax, Plot No.218 & 219 Bommasandra Corporate Circle 1(1) Jigani Link Road, Rajapura Hobli, Chennai 600 034. Jigani, Anekal Taluk. Bengaluru 560 105. [Pan:Aaeca 9923H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S P Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25 .11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

depreciation @25% for the Non-Compete fee since the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2003-04 had allowed the claim of the assessee. Accordingly he deleted an addition of Rs.4,59,863/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer. 3.2 The last issue raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is with regard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

depreciation, salary, travel etc have been claimed. The Ld. Counsel Page - 5 - of 17 ITA No.1688, 1796 & CO-56/Chny/2024 :- 6 -: explained that the Ld. AO rejected the arguments that because it is the business of the assessee to rent or lease ware houses therefore income thereof needs to be of taxed as business income. Consequently the Ld. AO disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

depreciation, salary, travel etc have been claimed. The Ld. Counsel Page - 5 - of 17 ITA No.1688, 1796 & CO-56/Chny/2024 :- 6 -: explained that the Ld. AO rejected the arguments that because it is the business of the assessee to rent or lease ware houses therefore income thereof needs to be of taxed as business income. Consequently the Ld. AO disallowed

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. BERGEN PIPE SUPPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

46A or section 250(4) of the Act, 2 despite the fact that additional evidences were submitted by the assessee for the claim of interest on Compulsorily Convertible Debentures which was originally not submitted during the assessment proceedings. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Licence to work certificate issued by the Inspector

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this Section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 or this Section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this Section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 or this Section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this Section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 or this Section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. HITACHI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed\nby the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपीलसं./IT(TP)A No.: 17/CHNY/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nHitachi Solutions India Private\nLimited,\nBlock 5, 10th Floor, 1/124,\nDLF IT Park, Shivaji Gardens,\nMount Poonamallee Road,\nChennai - 600 089.\nThe Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nVs. Corporate Circle- 1(1),\nNo.121, M.G.Road,\nChennai - 600 034.\n[PAN:AAACZ-1544-R]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर

depreciation, amortization and other non-cash\nexpenses of the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies.\n3. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) I Ld. TPO I Ld. AO have erred, in law and on facts and\ncircumstances of the case, by not making suitable adjustments to account for\ndifferences in the risk profile of the Appellant

MAGICK WOODS EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assesssee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 871/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Magic Woods Exports Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle -4(1), A-8, Industrial Complex, Chennai. Maraimalai Nagar, Kancheepuram – 603 209

section 32 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 1-4-2002. It is no more :-7-: at the option of the Appellant to claim such depreciation and even in the absence of the claim by the Appellant, it is the obligation of the Ld. AO to grant such depreciation while computing the total income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

depreciation claim of deferred revenue expenditure (relaunch expenses). 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee filed detailed chart ground-wise and also filed Co-ordinate Bench order in assessee’s own case for Assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.730,737 754 & 1219 of 2023 dated 27.03.2024. 4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel

EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI)PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-II(1), CHENNAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

depreciation claim of deferred revenue expenditure (relaunch expenses). 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee filed detailed chart ground-wise and also filed Co-ordinate Bench order in assessee’s own case for Assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.730,737 754 & 1219 of 2023 dated 27.03.2024. 4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel

M/S. ANAND TRANSPORT,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1269/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010

Section 195A of the Act before the Assessing Officer. 4. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the very same issue was considered by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case in Anand Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 524. The Madras High Court found that an identical payment

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ANAND TRANSPORT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1269/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010

Section 195A of the Act before the Assessing Officer. 4. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the very same issue was considered by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case in Anand Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 524. The Madras High Court found that an identical payment

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ANAND TRANSPORT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1269/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010

Section 195A of the Act before the Assessing Officer. 4. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the very same issue was considered by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case in Anand Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 524. The Madras High Court found that an identical payment