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

section 801A(3)(ii) based on the facts proved through the\nadditional evidence. The AO did not agree with the legal contentions of the\nassesseethat no disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JSR INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

801A of the Act was not made by the assesse in the original ITR filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) o filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) on 30.11.2016. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the The Ld.CIT

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

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

C.E.S.ONYX PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowances\nmade by A.O u/s. 801A(4) of the Act.\n7. The Ld. AR before us has submitted that the agreement entered\ninto with CoC, the municipal authority with M/s. CGEA Asia Holdings\nPvt. Ltd. On the 26th November 1999 is a concession agreement and\nnot a contract for executing any work therefore, the work cannot be\ntreated as work

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

II, Chennai. [PAN: AAACA 4651 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1663/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 v. The DCIT, M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., NCC-8, No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [PAN: AAACA 4651 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department by : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT : सुनवाईक

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\ndismissed

3. I have gone through the decision relied on by the AR of the\nappellant in the case of CIT Vs. Laxmi Civil Engineering works [supra]\nwherein it was held that mere development of a infrastructure facility\nis an eligible activity for claiming deduction under section 80IA of the\nAct after considering the Judgement of the Mumbai High Court

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

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

3. I have gone through the decision relied on by the AR of the\nappellant in the case of CIT Vs. Laxmi Civil Engineering works [supra]\nwherein it was held that mere development of a infrastructure facility\nis an eligible activity for claiming deduction under section 80IA of the\nAct after considering the Judgement of the Mumbai High Court

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

ii) of the Act for its newly established undertaking in a notified area of Pantnagar, Uttaranchal. The new undertaking had commenced its operation w.e.f 29.03.201 0, thus, AY 2010-11 was the initial assessment year. During FY 2009-10 (AY 2010-11), the said undertaking had incurred a loss of Rs. 2,12,94,977/-. The appellant in its submissions

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,TUTUCORIN vs. DCIT, CC-1,, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

3) r.w.s. 147, were as under: - 1. As per provisions of section 80AC, no deduction u/s 80IA shall be allowed unless the assessee furnishes a Return of Income for such Assessment Year on or before the due date of filing of return u/s 139 (1) of the Act. 2. The assessee has failed to enclose the certificate from the port

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

3) r.w.s. 147, were as under: - 1. As per provisions of section 80AC, no deduction u/s 80IA shall be allowed unless the assessee furnishes a Return of Income for such Assessment Year on or before the due date of filing of return u/s 139 (1) of the Act. 2. The assessee has failed to enclose the certificate from the port

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

3) r.w.s. 147, were as under: - 1. As per provisions of section 80AC, no deduction u/s 80IA shall be allowed unless the assessee furnishes a Return of Income for such Assessment Year on or before the due date of filing of return u/s 139 (1) of the Act. 2. The assessee has failed to enclose the certificate from the port

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

3) r.w.s. 147, were as under: - 1. As per provisions of section 80AC, no deduction u/s 80IA shall be allowed unless the assessee furnishes a Return of Income for such Assessment Year on or before the due date of filing of return u/s 139 (1) of the Act. 2. The assessee has failed to enclose the certificate from the port

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

3) The assessee is not the owner of the project (4) The assessee is not having the entire plant & machineries for execution of the works but sub contracting the work to other persons. & C.O No.50/CHNY/2016 Accordingly, the claim made by the assessee as deduction u/s. 80IA for Rs.53,19,46,943/- is hereby disallowed.” Aggrieved, the assessee raised objection before

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

3) The assessee is not the owner of the project (4) The assessee is not having the entire plant & machineries for execution of the works but sub contracting the work to other persons. & C.O No.50/CHNY/2016 Accordingly, the claim made by the assessee as deduction u/s. 80IA for Rs.53,19,46,943/- is hereby disallowed.” Aggrieved, the assessee raised objection before

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

3. As against the disallowance of the claim, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellate authority has allowed the appeal, thereby granting the claim of the assessee made under Section 80IB of the Act. It was against the said order, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which came

SG WIND FARM PVT. LTD.,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

801A of the\nAct for which reasons, even though not captured in the computation sheet / search\nassessment order and communicated only in the rejection order passed under Section 154\nof the Act\n20. The CIT(Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the difficulties faced on\naccount of COVID 19 Pandemic and restrictions imposed in relation thereto were\ncompletely overlooked

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)

3. As against the disallowance of the claim, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellate authority has allowed the appeal, thereby granting the claim of the assessee made under Section 80IB of the Act. It was against the said order, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which came