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

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 dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

801A, it is prerequisite that the assessee has not formed the new business with machinery previously used. 2.5 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not observing that, as per Explanation 2 to subsection 3 of 80IA, if the total value of used plant, machinery in the new business is less than 20% then clause ii) of section 80IA(3) will

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowances were also made in the earlier years starting from the A.Y.2003-4. The CIT(A)-II, Chennai, allowed the appeals of A.Ys. 2003-04, 2003-04, 2004-05 in favour of the assessee. When the revenue preferred appeals before the ITAT, the issue of deduction u/s.80-IA was remitted back to the file of CIT(A) with some directions. The Commissioner

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowances were also made in the earlier years starting from the A.Y.2003-4. The CIT(A)-II, Chennai, allowed the appeals of A.Ys. 2003-04, 2003-04, 2004-05 in favour of the assessee. When the revenue preferred appeals before the ITAT, the issue of deduction u/s.80-IA was remitted back to the file of CIT(A) with some directions. The Commissioner

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

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

IV Floor, Krishnan Complex,\nSouth Boag Road, T. Nagar,\nChennai - 600 017.\n[PAN: AABCC 1396D]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nअपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by\nप्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent by\nThe Asst. Commissioner of\nVs. Income Tax,\nCompany Circle-1(3),\nChennai.\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nShri G. Baskar, Shri I. Dinesh &\nShri A.Sathaseelan, Advocates\nShri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUNELVELI vs. VVD AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of deduction u/s\n80IA claimed towards interest income o Rs. 2.3423.637- by holding that\ninterest income partakes of the character of profits and gains of eligible\nbusiness\n3. The learned CITA) failed to appreciate that Section 80IA provides for\nallowing of deduction in respect of profits & gains \"derived from\"\neligible business and that Section 80IA does not provide

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

IV of the IT Act shall be aggregated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the IT Act, 1961. This means that first the income/loss from various sources i.e. eligible and ineligible units, under the same head are aggregated in accordance with the provisions of section 70 of the Act. Thereafter, the income from one ahead is aggregated

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

section 14A is applicable prospectively from with effect from 1.4.2022 and not for the year under appeal. 3.3. Without prejudice to above grounds, even if Rule 8D is held as applicable, investments from which no dividend income is earned should not be considered while applying Rule 8D as held in Appellant's own case

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)

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 to be dismissed under the impugned

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

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 to be dismissed under the impugned