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

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

depreciation claimed on goodwill as could be evident from the Budget Speech and Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2021 that the Government intends to avoid excessive benefits claimed by the taxpayers. Thus, the ld. DR has submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be sustained. 10. We have heard both the parties

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

48 days and 12 days respectively, for which, the assessee has filed petitions for condonation of the delay in the form of an affidavit, to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay in filing of both the appeals stands condoned and the appeals are admitted

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

48 days and 12 days respectively, for which, the assessee has filed petitions for condonation of the delay in the form of an affidavit, to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay in filing of both the appeals stands condoned and the appeals are admitted

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

48 days and 12 days respectively, for which, the assessee has filed petitions for condonation of the delay in the form of an affidavit, to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay in filing of both the appeals stands condoned and the appeals are admitted

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

48 days and 12 days respectively, for which, the assessee has filed petitions for condonation of the delay in the form of an affidavit, to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay in filing of both the appeals stands condoned and the appeals are admitted

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

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

depreciation under\nsection 32(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be allowed. The Id. DR strongly relied on\nthe order of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of United Breweries Limited.\nThe Id. DR also submitted that the intention of the amendments is to put a\nrest to the long pending litigation and provide clarity on tax treatment of\ndepreciation

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

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

depreciation under\nsection 32(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be allowed. The Id. DR strongly relied on\nthe order of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of United Breweries Limited.\nThe Id. DR also submitted that the intention of the amendments is to put a\nrest to the long pending litigation and provide clarity on tax treatment of\ndepreciation

M/S ARKEMA PEROXIDES INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CORPORATE CIRCLE1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include the present situation." b) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Piramal Glass Limited (ITA No. 556 of 2017) relying on the above Gujarat High Court judgment, above Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Areva T & D India Limited and Apex Court judgment in the case

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation to certain extent and in assessment year 2011-12 it was allowed at Rs.2,04,77,364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation to certain extent and in assessment year 2011-12 it was allowed at Rs.2,04,77,364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation to certain extent and in assessment year 2011-12 it was allowed at Rs.2,04,77,364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation to certain extent and in assessment year 2011-12 it was allowed at Rs.2,04,77,364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation to certain extent and in assessment year 2011-12 it was allowed at Rs.2,04,77,364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation to certain extent and in assessment year 2011-12 it was allowed at Rs.2,04,77,364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation to certain extent and in assessment year 2011-12 it was allowed at Rs.2,04,77,364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation to certain extent and in assessment year 2011-12 it was allowed at Rs.2,04,77,364/- as against claim made by assessee at Rs.8,19,09,459/- after considering the reply of assessee dated 15.02.2019 and analyzing the provisions of section 32 r.w.s 47(xiii), 48

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

48(1). He also relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs A. Venkataraman (1982) 137 ITR 846, wherein it was held that retrenchment compensation paid to the employees in terms of the agreement to sell was an allowable deduction incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the sale of the asset

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

48(1). He also relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs A. Venkataraman (1982) 137 ITR 846, wherein it was held that retrenchment compensation paid to the employees in terms of the agreement to sell was an allowable deduction incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the sale of the asset

DCIT LTU-1 , CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

48 ITA Nos.936-944/CHNY/2018 ITA No.1089/CHNY/18 & ITA No.1012/CHNY/19 section 14A of the Act by the AO, so as to verify and to reach at a conclusion that if the financial information of the assessee are suggesting any disallowance in terms of provisions of Section 14A or not. We, therefore, restore this matter back to the file of AO to readjudicate