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

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

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

disallowance of section 80IA read will section 80AC in respect of the original return, as the only surviving return is that filed pursuant to notice u/s. 153A and the time limit for filing of return and claiming deduction u/s.801A shall be as per section 153A of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax erred in not following the decision

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

disallowance of section 80IA read will section 80AC in respect of the original return, as the only surviving return is that filed pursuant to notice u/s. 153A and the time limit for filing of return and claiming deduction u/s.801A shall be as per section 153A of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax erred in not following the decision

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

disallowance of section 80IA read will section 80AC in respect of the original return, as the only surviving return is that filed pursuant to notice u/s. 153A and the time limit for filing of return and claiming deduction u/s.801A shall be as per section 153A of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax erred in not following the decision

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

disallowance of section 80IA read will section 80AC in respect of the original return, as the only surviving return is that filed pursuant to notice u/s. 153A and the time limit for filing of return and claiming deduction u/s.801A shall be as per section 153A of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax erred in not following the decision

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

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

7 ITA No. 141/Hyd/2007 &\nOthers). and Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT 84 TTJ (Mum) 646.\n6. On examining the facts of assessee's case it is noticed that assessee\nhas carried out construction work and profits earned from this activity\nis being claimed as deduction under section 80IA(4).\nSub-section (1) of 80IA provides for a deduction

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

7 ITA No. 141/Hyd/2007 &\nOthers). and Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT 84 TTJ (Mum) 646.\n6. On examining the facts of assessee's case it is noticed that assessee\nhas carried out construction work and profits earned from this activity\nis being claimed as deduction under section 80IA(4).\nSub-section (1) of 80IA provides for a deduction

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

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

7. The DRP deleted the corporate guarantee determined by the TPO as ALP and making upward adjustment accordingly. The DRP deleted by observing as under: “3.5.3. The issue of determining the ALP on corporate guarantee has already been examined by the jurisdictional bench of Chennai ITAT in the case of Redington India Ltd. v. JCIT (ITA No.513/ Mds/2014). The Honble

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

7. The DRP deleted the corporate guarantee determined by the TPO as ALP and making upward adjustment accordingly. The DRP deleted by observing as under: “3.5.3. The issue of determining the ALP on corporate guarantee has already been examined by the jurisdictional bench of Chennai ITAT in the case of Redington India Ltd. v. JCIT (ITA No.513/ Mds/2014). The Honble

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

801A(7) which reads as under:- "The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section

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

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

DIGVIJAI POLYTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT CORP CIRCLE, MADURAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.343/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Digvijai Polytex Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 61, Kumarasamy Raja Nagar, Income Tax, Rajapalayam 626 108. Corporate Circle, Madurai. [Pan: Aaacd 9673K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. J. Prabhakar & Shri. S. Muralidhar, Chartered Accountants. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

section 801A of the Act. Therefore, the CPC has rightly disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant on this income to the extent of Rs. 12,69,246/-.’’ 4. On further appeal before us, Ld.AR, Shri J Prabhakar CA, relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/ Reliance Energy Ltd. [2021] 127 taxmann.com

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. OLYMPIA TECH PARK (CHENNAI) PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 801A(4), viz., (1) development of industrial park, (ii) development and operation of industrial park and (iii) operation and maintenance of industrial park; the assessee (transferee) is not a developer of industrial park but is only carrying out operation and maintenance of the industrial park and accordingly only the part of income as is attributable to "operation and maintenance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. OLYMPIA TECH PARK (CHENNAI) PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 801A(4), viz., (1) development of industrial park, (ii) development and operation of industrial park and (iii) operation and maintenance of industrial park; the assessee (transferee) is not a developer of industrial park but is only carrying out operation and maintenance of the industrial park and accordingly only the part of income as is attributable to "operation and maintenance