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.

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 4.2 However, while making disallowance, the Assessing Officer has not given any findings in the assessment order that the reimbursement of expenses could be recognized as income of the assessee and assessable to tax. By following the decision in the case of CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects P. Ltd. 202

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.

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 4.2 However, while making disallowance, the Assessing Officer has not given any findings in the assessment order that the reimbursement of expenses could be recognized as income of the assessee and assessable to tax. By following the decision in the case of CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects P. Ltd. 202

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.

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 4.2 However, while making disallowance, the Assessing Officer has not given any findings in the assessment order that the reimbursement of expenses could be recognized as income of the assessee and assessable to tax. By following the decision in the case of CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects P. Ltd. 202

IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, RANGE CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

disallowance to the extent of Rs. 60,73,202/- which pertain to financial year 2016-17 by observing in para 8.3 to 8.5 as under:- “8.3 I have carefully considered the relevant and material facts on record, in respect of this ground of appeal, as brought out in the assessment order and submissions made during appeal proceedings. Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

disallowance under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹.1224,42,26,621/- under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and held that the reassessment is invalid on the ground that the reasons recorded for reopening fall in the category

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

disallowance under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹.1224,42,26,621/- under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and held that the reassessment is invalid on the ground that the reasons recorded for reopening fall in the category

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 14A in A.Y 2009-10, & 2010-11 is remitted to the file of the AO to re-compute the same after giving opportunity to the assessee. 6. The next common ground in all the appeals is with regard to disallowance of proportionate interest made by the AO as attributable for advance granted to subsidiary companies by the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 14A in A.Y 2009-10, & 2010-11 is remitted to the file of the AO to re-compute the same after giving opportunity to the assessee. 6. The next common ground in all the appeals is with regard to disallowance of proportionate interest made by the AO as attributable for advance granted to subsidiary companies by the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 14A in A.Y 2009-10, & 2010-11 is remitted to the file of the AO to re-compute the same after giving opportunity to the assessee. 6. The next common ground in all the appeals is with regard to disallowance of proportionate interest made by the AO as attributable for advance granted to subsidiary companies by the assessee

AVALON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3) , 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result inenhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI- A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance. 4. Accordingly, henceforth

AVALON TECHNOLOIGES (P) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3) , 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result inenhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI- A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance. 4. Accordingly, henceforth

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AVALON TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3) , 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result inenhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI- A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance. 4. Accordingly, henceforth

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

disallowance of short term capital loss of Rs.238,71,03,202/- incurred upon sale of shares of Avia. 10.1 The facts as noted are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and marketing of commercial vehicles. The assessee is noted to have invested in Avia, a foreign company in Czech Republic, which was engaged in production, sale

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1149/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Doosan Power Systems India Income Tax, V. Private Limited, Corporate Circle -1(1), 18/2A, Sennerkuppam, Bye Chennai. Pass Road, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan:Aabcb-5946-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

disallowances under section 40(a)(i) of the Act under section 40(a)(i) of the Act by referring to this Tribunal’s decision in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2013-14. We note that the order of the Tribunal for the A.Y.2013-14, relied by the Ld.CIT(A) was passed by relying on the revised DTAA between India

VNC STEEL DISTRIBUTORS,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1937/Chny/2024 & Stay Petition No: 40/Chny/2024 [In Ita No: 1937/Chny/2024)] िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vnc Steel Distributors, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, S. Vellalapatti, Circle -1(1), Karur – 639 004. Trichy. [Pan: Aadfv-9137-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 194C.However, it is observed that these payments have been made to hotels for promotional meets. The nature of expense incurred is in the form of advertisement to promote the sales of the company. Since the expenditure was incurred towards promotion of business sales, the same needs to be considered as a contract and as such the payment is liable

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRLE-8, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

section 14A(2)(3) could not have been invoked. The Id.CIT(A) relied upon\nthe judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment [402\n4\nITA Nos .661 & 914/19, 202,203/23 others\nITR 640 SC) and held that the dominant intention will not be relevant for\ndetermining disallowance

RECKITT BENCKISER SCHOLL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.756/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Reckitt Benckiser Scholl The Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited V. Income Tax, (Formerly Known As M/S. Corporate Circle – V (1), Reckitt Benekiser Scholl India Chennai Limited). Plot F 73/74, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram – 602 117

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act and the DRP has rejected. vii) The assessee objected for excluding of income, interest dividend, provision for foreign exchange, etc., for deduction u/s.10B which was rejected by the DRP and upheld the order of the TPO. Consequent to the DRP order, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s

INTIMATE FASHIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in IT (TP) A No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleit (Tp) A No.48/Chny/2019 It (Tp) A No.54/Chny/2018 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S.Intimate Fashions (India)- V. The Dcit / Jcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2(2), 517-519, Chennai. Tirupporur Kottamedu High Road, Nandhivaram Village, Guduvancheri-603 202. Kanchipuram District.

202. Kanchipuram District. [PAN: AAACI 2706 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.Sriram Seshadri, CA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.Ashik Shah, CA & Ms.C.Sowndarya, CA : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT : 06.04.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA.G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee

INTIMATE FASHIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in IT (TP) A No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleit (Tp) A No.48/Chny/2019 It (Tp) A No.54/Chny/2018 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S.Intimate Fashions (India)- V. The Dcit / Jcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2(2), 517-519, Chennai. Tirupporur Kottamedu High Road, Nandhivaram Village, Guduvancheri-603 202. Kanchipuram District.

202. Kanchipuram District. [PAN: AAACI 2706 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.Sriram Seshadri, CA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.Ashik Shah, CA & Ms.C.Sowndarya, CA : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT : 06.04.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA.G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee