DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2021 & Ita No.847/Chny/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Rpp Infra Projects Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Limited, Sf No.454, Ragupathynaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. Pan :Aaacr-9307-E (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, Cit : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025 : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 / 19, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 24.02.2021 / 06.07.2022 For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Admittedly Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, Ay 2012-13 Has Been Taken To Be The Lead Year. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 127 Days In Filing Three Appeals For Ays 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Affidavits By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay & Treat The Reasons As 'Sufficient Cause' & Admit These Appeals For Adjudication.

801A is allowable only when the enterprise begins to operate any infrastructure facility. 7. The language of section 80IA was materially amended vide finance bill of 2001. The explanatory memorandum for the Finance Bill 2001 recorded as under: "Under the existing provisions of section 80IA, roads, highways, bridges, airports ports and rail systems are regarded as infrastructure facilities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

801A(4). It is further stated that assessee is not a works contractor' as defined in the explanation to section 80IA(4). It is stated that during the assessment year under consideration assessed has derived profits from developing the below mentioned infrastructure projects which are claimed as deduction under section 80IA, 1. Contractee - PWD, WRO, Parambikulam Aliyar Basin Circle, Pollachi

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

801A(4). It is further stated that assessee is not a works contractor' as defined in the explanation to section 80IA(4). It is stated that during the assessment year under consideration assessed has derived profits from developing the below mentioned infrastructure projects which are claimed as deduction under section 80IA, 1. Contractee - PWD, WRO, Parambikulam Aliyar Basin Circle, Pollachi

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LTU 2 (IC), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

801A(5) in unambiguous terms: The important factors are to be noted in sub-section (5) and they are as under : "(1) t starts with a non obstante clause which means it overrides all the provisions of the Act and other provisions are to be ignored ; (2) It is for the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction

ROOTS INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE (1), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – R.K.G. Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ganapathy, Corporate Circle-(1), Coimbatore-641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabcr 0314 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

801A(7) of the Act. It may be submitted that law is continuously evolving. The government is in the process of giving sun-set to various deductions and exemptions sections of the Act and even encouraging existing taxpayers to migrate to simplified tax payment structure, by giving-up its various otherwise entitled claims under the Act. This is the intent

ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATES LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT,CORP. CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAIQ

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

801A(7) of the Act. H) It may be submitted that law is continuously evolving. The government is in the process of giving sun-set to various deductions and exemptions sections of the Act and even encouraging existing taxpayers to migrate to simplified tax payment structure, by giving-up its various otherwise entitled claims under the Act. This

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

depreciation was denied by the AO in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 also. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the captioned appeals before us. 6. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the captioned appeals before us. 7. The assessee made detailed submissions against the above adjustments during the hearing

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

depreciation. The TPO noted the facts that the name of the assessee was changed from Balcke Durr and Technologies Limited to VA Tech WABAG Limited pursuant to a special resolution dated 10.03.2000. There has been no change either in the name or in the Logo used by the assessee right from that time till date and the assessee continued

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

depreciation. The TPO noted the facts that the name of the assessee was changed from Balcke Durr and Technologies Limited to VA Tech WABAG Limited pursuant to a special resolution dated 10.03.2000. There has been no change either in the name or in the Logo used by the assessee right from that time till date and the assessee continued

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

depreciation on windmills in earlier years. had to be set off notionally against the deduction as per Section 801A(S) as per the Special

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

depreciation @15% in respect of the installations made in the mines and 10% in respect of the buildings, Canteen, Bus Station, etc. The Revenues’ appeal on this issue for the A.Ys 2007-08 and 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 4.0 The next issue is surcharge recoverable from electricity bills: During the assessment proceedings, the AO found from

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

depreciation @15% in respect of the installations made in the mines and 10% in respect of the buildings, Canteen, Bus Station, etc. The Revenues’ appeal on this issue for the A.Ys 2007-08 and 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 4.0 The next issue is surcharge recoverable from electricity bills: During the assessment proceedings, the AO found from

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

depreciation @15% in respect of the installations made in the mines and 10% in respect of the buildings, Canteen, Bus Station, etc. The Revenues’ appeal on this issue for the A.Ys 2007-08 and 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 4.0 The next issue is surcharge recoverable from electricity bills: During the assessment proceedings, the AO found from

NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

depreciation @15% in respect of the installations made in the mines and 10% in respect of the buildings, Canteen, Bus Station, etc. The Revenues’ appeal on this issue for the A.Ys 2007-08 and 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 4.0 The next issue is surcharge recoverable from electricity bills: During the assessment proceedings, the AO found from

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

depreciation @15% in respect of the installations made in the mines and 10% in respect of the buildings, Canteen, Bus Station, etc. The Revenues’ appeal on this issue for the A.Ys 2007-08 and 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 4.0 The next issue is surcharge recoverable from electricity bills: During the assessment proceedings, the AO found from

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

depreciation is also allowable as deduction under section 32 in respect of business assets on the cost of acquisition. In determining the cost of acquisition, the interest component after bringing the asset into existence is not taken into consideration as Explanation 8 to section 43 of the Act. If the interest is to be added to cost of acquisition, then

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

depreciation is also allowable as deduction under section 32 in respect of business assets on the cost of acquisition. In determining the cost of acquisition, the interest component after bringing the asset into existence is not taken into consideration as Explanation 8 to section 43 of the Act. If the interest is to be added to cost of acquisition, then

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

depreciation is also allowable as deduction under section 32 in respect of business assets on the cost of acquisition. In determining the cost of acquisition, the interest component after bringing the asset into existence is not taken into consideration as Explanation 8 to section 43 of the Act. If the interest is to be added to cost of acquisition, then

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M.M.FORGINGS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2679/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011 -2012)

801A(5).The deduction u/s 80IA would be eligible only on such surplus profits after setting off of the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The AO has relied on the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of ACIT Vs. Gold Mine and Shares & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 113 ITD 209 as well