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

disallowed the total depreciation claimed under section 32(1) of the Act on the ground that goodwill accounted in the books of assessee company is a self-generated which is not qualified for depreciation as an intangible. The Assessing Officer has discussed at length, considered the explanations of the assessee, judicial precedents and approval of the Hon’ble High Court

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

disallowed the total depreciation claimed under section 32(1) of the Act on the ground that goodwill accounted in the books of assessee company is a self-generated which is not qualified for depreciation as an intangible. The Assessing Officer has discussed at length, considered the explanations of the assessee, judicial precedents and approval of the Hon’ble High Court

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144A of the Act,had stated as under: "S 9(1)(vi)(b) itself provides the exception. If the Resident-assessee utilizes the services of the Non-resident, in its business outside India, it is covered under the exception given in the section itself and the payment received by the non-resident cannot be deemed to accrue or arise

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144A of the Act,had stated as under: "S 9(1)(vi)(b) itself provides the exception. If the Resident-assessee utilizes the services of the Non-resident, in its business outside India, it is covered under the exception given in the section itself and the payment received by the non-resident cannot be deemed to accrue or arise

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 56(2) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) and disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘’the Rules’’). Latter issue appears in assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-2014 also. 3. had filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing income

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 56(2) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) and disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘’the Rules’’). Latter issue appears in assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-2014 also. 3. had filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing income

ACIT, MADURAI vs. ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATE LTD., MADURAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Aruna Alloy Steels (P) Ltd., Income Tax, V. Super B-3, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle I, K-Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. Madurai. Pan : Aaeca 6781 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

144A of the Act. 15 I.T.A. Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/16 16. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed. 17. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration

ACIT, MADURAI vs. ARUNA ALLOY STEELS (P) LTD., MADURAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Aruna Alloy Steels (P) Ltd., Income Tax, V. Super B-3, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle I, K-Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. Madurai. Pan : Aaeca 6781 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

144A of the Act. 15 I.T.A. Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/16 16. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed. 17. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration

ACIT, MADURAI vs. ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATE LTD., MADURAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Aruna Alloy Steels (P) Ltd., Income Tax, V. Super B-3, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle I, K-Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. Madurai. Pan : Aaeca 6781 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

144A of the Act. 15 I.T.A. Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/16 16. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed. 17. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration

GOVINDASAMY SURESH,THIRUKALUKUNDRAM vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-22(1)(TBM), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.365/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Govindasamy Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 2/3, Brindhavathi Illam, 3Rd Street, Income Tax, Thirupur Kumaran Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 22(1), Thesumukipet, Thirukalukundram, Tambaram, Chennai. Kanchipuram, 603109 Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Ducps4984N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Chennai Dated 23.02.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

disallowance as per Section 40(a)(ia). This aspect was not examined by the Assessing Officer. 4. The present case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the issue mentioned supra. The Board's Instruction No.5/2016 dated 14.07.2016, lays down the procedure and limits relating to "revenue potential cases" where the Assessing Officer can, based on his reasonable view

P KUPPUCHAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

disallow the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer.\n21. I note the above observations of learned Accountant Member and is of the view that assessment proceedings or any proceedings under the Act before the Assessing Officer which affect the levy of tax on the subject are judicial in nature. It is well-settled that the Assessing Officer upon whom jurisdiction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE -3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. P P ENTERPRISES, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144A of the Income Tax Act, no direction can be given by the JCIT / ACIT under any other provisions of the Act. The process of approval u/s.153D cannot Kailash Gahlot be said to be similar with v DCIT assessment and starts only ITA No.3431 / after the draft assessment Del / 2023 order is forwarded to the Para 25: Section 153D JCIT

SELLAMUTHU KABILAN,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144A of the Income Tax Act, no direction can be given by the JCIT / ACIT under any other provisions of the Act. The process of approval u/s.153D cannot Kailash Gahlot be said to be similar with v DCIT assessment and starts only ITA No.3431 / after the draft assessment Del / 2023 order is forwarded to the Para 25: Section 153D JCIT

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144A of the Income Tax Act, no direction can be given by the JCIT / ACIT under any other provisions of the Act. The process of approval u/s.153D cannot Kailash Gahlot be said to be similar with v DCIT assessment and starts only ITA No.3431 / after the draft assessment Del / 2023 order is forwarded to the Para 25: Section 153D JCIT

P.P. ENTERPRISES,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144A of the Income Tax Act, no direction can be given by the JCIT / ACIT under any other provisions of the Act. The process of approval u/s.153D cannot Kailash Gahlot be said to be similar with v DCIT assessment and starts only ITA No.3431 / after the draft assessment Del / 2023 order is forwarded to the Para 25: Section 153D JCIT

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144A of the Income Tax Act, no direction can be given by the JCIT / ACIT under any other provisions of the Act. The process of approval u/s.153D cannot Kailash Gahlot be said to be similar with v DCIT assessment and starts only ITA No.3431 / after the draft assessment Del / 2023 order is forwarded to the Para 25: Section 153D JCIT

P KUPPUCHAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, , COIMBATORE

disallow the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. 21. I note the above observations of learned Accountant Member and is of the view that assessment proceedings or any proceedings under the Act before the Assessing Officer which affect the levy of tax on the subject are judicial in nature. It is well-settled that the Assessing Officer upon whom jurisdiction

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

disallow the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer.\n21. I note the above observations of learned Accountant Member and is of the view that assessment proceedings or any proceedings under the Act before the Assessing Officer which affect the levy of tax on the subject are judicial in nature. It is well-settled that the Assessing Officer upon whom jurisdiction