ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4)(iv) is\nattracted on the ground of violation of the condition specified in section\n801A(3)(ii) when the 'running business' of the 'wind mill undertaking' is\ntransferred to the assessee by the previous owner and that the stipulation in\nthe said condition that the 'undertaking' is not formed by the transfer

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

ii) of the First Schedule. On perusal of the assessment order, we find no such examination whatsoever made by the Assessing Officer in this regard. Therefore, the ld. PCIT rightly invoked the provisions under section 263 of the Act in holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue with reference to provision for diminution

CLASSIC LINENS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD), COMPANY RANGE-I,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3341/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Classic Linens International Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Unit 13 & 14, Sdf, Ii Phase Vs. Income Tax, Osd, Company Range-I, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabcc3510F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Raghunathan & Shri S. Sankar Narayanan, Advocates ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 30.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Deduction Of ₹.52,61,428/- Claimed Under Section 10Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

disallowed for impugned ay: 2011-12. However, it is matter of record that learned CIT(A) was pleased to allow benefit of deduction u/s 10AA to the assessee for immediately succeeding ay’s: 2012-13 and 2013-14 while adjudicating first appeal of the assessee. This is purely a legal issue which requires interpretation of law applied to as facts

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

4\nand dealt the issue extensively. Thus, the question of no enquiry by the\nAssessing Officer does not arise at all. Thus, the grounds 1 to 8 raised by\nthe assessee are allowed.\n34. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.\nITA No. 183/Chny/2021- AY: 2016-17\n35. Ground No. 1, 8 & 9 raised

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

4\nand dealt the issue extensively. Thus, the question of no enquiry by the\nAssessing Officer does not arise at all. Thus, the grounds 1 to 8 raised by\nthe assessee are allowed.\n34.\nIn the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.\nITA No. 183/Chny/2021- AY: 2016-17\n35.\nGround No. 1, 8 & 9 raised

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

4\nand dealt the issue extensively. Thus, the question of no enquiry by the\nAssessing Officer does not arise at all. Thus, the grounds 1 to 8 raised by\nthe assessee are allowed.\n34.\nIn the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.\nITA No. 183/Chny/2021- AY: 2016-17\n35.\nGround No. 1, 8 & 9 raised

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

4\nand dealt the issue extensively. Thus, the question of no enquiry by the\nAssessing Officer does not arise at all. Thus, the grounds 1 to 8 raised by\nthe assessee are allowed.\n34.\nIn the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.\nITA No. 183/Chny/2021- AY: 2016-17\n35.\nGround No. 1, 8 & 9 raised

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KHIVRAJ AUTOMOBILES & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1176, 1177 & 1178/Mds/2015 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, mainly for two reasons, i.e. — (i) That the assessee is not the owner of the windmills, and (ii) That the assessee’s business of power generation from windmills was splitting up of the business. ITA Nos.1176 to 1178/Mds/2016 :- 6 -: 4.3 On the other hand

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KHIVRAJ AUTOMOBILES & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1176, 1177 & 1178/Mds/2015 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, mainly for two reasons, i.e. — (i) That the assessee is not the owner of the windmills, and (ii) That the assessee’s business of power generation from windmills was splitting up of the business. ITA Nos.1176 to 1178/Mds/2016 :- 6 -: 4.3 On the other hand

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. K.A.INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1176, 1177 & 1178/Mds/2015 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, mainly for two reasons, i.e. — (i) That the assessee is not the owner of the windmills, and (ii) That the assessee’s business of power generation from windmills was splitting up of the business. ITA Nos.1176 to 1178/Mds/2016 :- 6 -: 4.3 On the other hand

ZOHO CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is\ndismissed

ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 10(4) of the income Tax\nAct, 1922 contain the same wording with regard to disallowance

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.DHANASEKARAN, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 3 -: and 360/Mds/2015 infrastructure facilities, which fulfill all the above conditions. From the assessment year 2000-01, deduction is available if the assessee is carrying out the business of anyone of the above mentioned three types of activities. When an assessee is only developing an infrastructure facility

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.DHANASEKARAN, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 3 -: and 360/Mds/2015 infrastructure facilities, which fulfill all the above conditions. From the assessment year 2000-01, deduction is available if the assessee is carrying out the business of anyone of the above mentioned three types of activities. When an assessee is only developing an infrastructure facility

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act made by the assessing officer primarily on the ground that the assessee was merely executing works contracts and did not satisfy the conditions stipulated u/s.80IA(4), under BOT/BOOT models by holding as under: “4. It is noticed that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 4,11,08,393/- under section 801A(4

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act made by the assessing officer primarily on the ground that the assessee was merely executing works contracts and did not satisfy the conditions stipulated u/s.80IA(4), under BOT/BOOT models by holding as under: “4. It is noticed that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 4,11,08,393/- under section 801A(4

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

ii) of the Rules cannot be applied given the Appellant's own\nsurplus funds exceeds the investments that potentially yield any exempt\nincome.\n\n6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating\nthe alternative plea of the Appellant that tax holiday under section 10A/\n10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant

DCIT , COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED , ERODE

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

4) read as (i) developing or (ii)\noperating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and\nmaintaining any infrastructure facility, prior to amendment the \"or\"\nbetween three activities was not there, after the amendment\" \"or\"\nhas been inserted w.e.f. 1-4-2002 by Finance Act 2001. Further, in\nsimilar circumstances, the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of M/s. GVPR\nEngineers