DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. AATHMIKA HOLDINGS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 50B of the Act—is well-founded. It is a well-settled legal principle that taxation laws must be interpreted with precision and strict adherence to their language, leaving no scope for presumptions, assumptions, or interpretative liberties. i) The principles governing the interpretation of taxation statutes have been authoritatively laid down by the Constitution Bench

T.A.TAYLOR PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. T.A. Taylor Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.10/5, Royal Enclave, Income Tax, Besant Avenue Road, Corporate Circle 3(1) Adyar, Chennai. Chennai 600 020. [Pan Aaact 4165G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) which deals with computation of capital gains in a case of slump sale is reproduced hereunder:- ‘’(1) Any profits or gains arising from the slump sale effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income-tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets

PLR TEXTILES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT ,CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 133/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Plr Textiles Ltd., The Acit, 8K, Century Plaza, V. Corporate Circle -5(2), 560-562, Mount Road, Chennai – 641 034. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacp-6536-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, Vide Ita No.153/Cit(A)-3/2018-19For The Assessment Year 2005-06, Dated 13.03.2020. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee, Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Hearing Both The :-2-:

50B) for a consideration of Rs.9.70 cores. The sale consideration was settled by taking over the liabilities of the undertaking at Rs.8.69 crores and balance being settled by allotment of share with a face value of Rs.100.00 lakhs. (application for allotment is at page 22 and 25 of the paper book 1). :-6-: ITA. No:133/Chny/2021  The undertaking was transferred

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

50B. Hence without transferring land and building an undertaking cannot be transferred. This shows that there is no separate undertaking called “CCP Division” but only an activity existed. In this case, as only a business activity has been transferred, it is to be treated as business profit u/s 28(iv). In view of the above, the amount of Rs.380

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are 22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1388/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 2(42C) .The ld. Authorised Representative explained the mode of computation of net worth as per the provisions of sec. 50B of the Act. Considering the assessee’s calculation statements and MOU, the ld. Assessing Officer is of the opinion that the assessee has only sold ‘’project assets’’ being 24 Nos. of windmills and land and the slump sale

CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are 22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1388/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 2(42C) .The ld. Authorised Representative explained the mode of computation of net worth as per the provisions of sec. 50B of the Act. Considering the assessee’s calculation statements and MOU, the ld. Assessing Officer is of the opinion that the assessee has only sold ‘’project assets’’ being 24 Nos. of windmills and land and the slump sale

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

depreciation allowed @5% as per Income Tax Rules.\nHence, we uphold the order of the Assessing Officer and dismiss the\nground of the assessee.\"\n7.2\nIn view of the above decision (supra), we see no reason to interfere\nwith the orders of the lower authorities and thus confirm the impugned\ndisallowance. Ground No. 6 of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

PROFILE GEARS & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.286/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

50B. Proceedings u/s.263 was initiated and the CIT-III vide order in C.No.3033/12/III/2010-11 dated 07.03.2011 directed the Assessing Officer to set aside the original assessment order and pas a fresh order in accordance with law. In order to complete the assessment proceedings u/s.263 a notice u/s.143(2) was issued. During the course of assessment, when M/s. SRP Tools