BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

155 (Mad), the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for deleting the addition made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Alternatively, it was submitted that even if the commission is treated as fees for technical services, it is not taxable if rendered outside India in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

155 (Mad), the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for deleting the addition made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Alternatively, it was submitted that even if the commission is treated as fees for technical services, it is not taxable if rendered outside India in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

155 (Mad), the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for deleting the addition made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Alternatively, it was submitted that even if the commission is treated as fees for technical services, it is not taxable if rendered outside India in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CO. CIRCLE - II (3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

disallowances. The Ld. A.R, placing on reliance of the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation 12 SCL 139(SC) and other case laws have argued that there is continuing benefit to the business of the company over the entire period, the liability therefore, should be spread over the period of the debentures etc. ITA No.877, 878/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 :- 19

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. IDFC LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

disallowances. The Ld. A.R, placing on reliance of the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation 12 SCL 139(SC) and other case laws have argued that there is continuing benefit to the business of the company over the entire period, the liability therefore, should be spread over the period of the debentures etc. ITA No.877, 878/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 :- 19

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11 Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax, Development Finance Company Circle-Ii(3), Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.878/Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Development Finance Company Vs. Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : Shri Farookh V. Irani, Advocate : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024

disallowances. The Ld. A.R, placing on reliance of the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation 12 SCL 139(SC) and other case laws have argued that there is continuing benefit to the business of the company over the entire period, the liability therefore, should be spread over the period of the debentures etc. 17. On Section

M/S. SAINT GOBAIN GLASS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

19,582/- in relation to provision for doubtful debts while arriving at the books profits under section 115JB of the Act. v) The learned Assessing Officer has erred in determining the arm’s length price with respect to the international transaction relating to the commission paid by the assessee to M/s. Saint- 3 Gobain Exproover

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

19 February 2021 is without jurisdiction as the said order was passed without providing an opportunity of being heard as required under section 154(3) of the Act which is in violation of principles of natural justice and thereby, liable to be quashed. 3. The Ld.DR opposed admitting of the aforesaid additional ground. However, we note that this

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

19 February 2021 is without jurisdiction as the said order was passed without providing an opportunity of being heard as required under section 154(3) of the Act which is in violation of principles of natural justice and thereby, liable to be quashed. 3. The Ld.DR opposed admitting of the aforesaid additional ground. However, we note that this

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,IRUNGATTUKOTTAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

19 February 2021 is without jurisdiction as the said order was passed without providing an opportunity of being heard as required under section 154(3) of the Act which is in violation of principles of natural justice and thereby, liable to be quashed. 3. The Ld.DR opposed admitting of the aforesaid additional ground. However, we note that this

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

155/- already offered ITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 6 :: by the assessee, the further disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) comes to Rs.27,88,820/-. Hence, respectfully following the decision of Special Bench (supra), the AO is directed to verify this computation provided by the assessee and re-compute the disallowance under section

HARSHA IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3351/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Harsha Impex, The Income Tax Officer, No. 28, Kattur Sadayappan Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(4), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aacfh0426K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2018 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) 5, Chennai Dated 02.11.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Two Effective Grounds In Its Appeal, Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Overseas Export Commission Of ₹.30,68,879/- Paid To Non Residents Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & (Ii), The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Expenses

19,000/- incurred towards pollution treatment under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel that during the course of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, from the profit and loss account, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed export commission payment – overseas

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

155, wherein by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, appeal of the Revenue, the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:-- Held, dismissing the appeal, that on a reading of section Held, dismissing the appeal, that on a reading of section Held, dismissing the appeal, that on a reading

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

19, Chennai erred in not adjudicating and dismissing the ground on the legal validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which lacks jurisdiction, as the prescribe authority, as specified u/s 151 of the Act did not approve the same. :- 60 -: ITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 Integrated Service Point Ltd. 3. Adjudication of disallowance

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

19, Chennai erred in not adjudicating and dismissing the ground on the legal validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which lacks jurisdiction, as the prescribe authority, as specified u/s 151 of the Act did not approve the same. :- 60 -: ITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 Integrated Service Point Ltd. 3. Adjudication of disallowance

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

19,46,943/- is hereby disallowed.” Aggrieved, the assessee raised objection before DRP. 27. The DRP considering the earlier orders, allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in para 3.1 to 3.1.3 as under: “3.1.2. We have considered the order of the Assessing Officer, the contentions of the assessee, orders of the CIT(A), etc. carefully. The issue

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

19,46,943/- is hereby disallowed.” Aggrieved, the assessee raised objection before DRP. 27. The DRP considering the earlier orders, allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in para 3.1 to 3.1.3 as under: “3.1.2. We have considered the order of the Assessing Officer, the contentions of the assessee, orders of the CIT(A), etc. carefully. The issue

ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Integrated Service Point Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 30.12.2025 - : 2 -:

19, Chennai erred in not adjudicating and dismissing the ground on the legal validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which lacks jurisdiction, as the prescribe authority, as specified u/s 151 of the Act did not approve the same. - : 60 -: ITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 Integrated Service Point Ltd. 3. Adjudication of disallowance

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

155/- already offered\nITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16)\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.\n:: 6 ::\nby the assessee, the further disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii)\ncomes to Rs.27,88,820/-. Hence, respectfully following the decision of\nSpecial Bench (supra), the AO is directed to verify this computation\nprovided by the assessee and re-compute the disallowance under