ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

801A(3) will not apply, whereas, in the case of the assessee, since the entire undertaking has been purchased second hand, it means that 100% of plant and machinery in the new business has been previously used. 6. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowance of RS.2,96,49,439/ being technical and engineering charges paid to VA Tech Wabg GmbH, Austria on the presumption that no withholding tax has been deducted by the assessee. The A.O failed to understand that as per Section 9 (1) (vii) clause (b) of the Act, the income deemed to accrue or arise in India in respect

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowance of RS.2,96,49,439/ being technical and engineering charges paid to VA Tech Wabg GmbH, Austria on the presumption that no withholding tax has been deducted by the assessee. The A.O failed to understand that as per Section 9 (1) (vii) clause (b) of the Act, the income deemed to accrue or arise in India in respect

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2021 & Ita No.847/Chny/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs M/S. Rpp Infra Projects Limited, Sf No.454, Ragupathynaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. Pan :Aaacr-9307-E (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, Cit Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2025 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 / 19, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 24.02.2021 / 06.07.2022 For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Admittedly Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, Ay 2012-13 Has Been Taken To Be The Lead Year. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 127 Days In Filing Three Appeals For Ays 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Affidavits By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay & Treat The Reasons As 'Sufficient Cause' & Admit These Appeals For Adjudication.

9. It is further to be noticed that assessee is recognizing income from the projects on percentage completion method. Thus, even before the whole work of the project/infrastructure facility is completed assessee is recognizing income from the project and claiming deduction under section 80IA(4). 10 As analysed/discussed in the above paras assessee has not earned any income from operating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2021 & Ita No.847/Chny/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Rpp Infra Projects Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Limited, Sf No.454, Ragupathynaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. Pan :Aaacr-9307-E (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, Cit : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025 : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 / 19, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 24.02.2021 / 06.07.2022 For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Admittedly Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, Ay 2012-13 Has Been Taken To Be The Lead Year. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 127 Days In Filing Three Appeals For Ays 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Affidavits By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay & Treat The Reasons As 'Sufficient Cause' & Admit These Appeals For Adjudication.

9. It is further to be noticed that assessee is recognizing income from the projects on percentage completion method. Thus, even before the whole work of the project/infrastructure facility is completed assessee is recognizing income from the project and claiming deduction under section 80IA(4). 10 As analysed/discussed in the above paras assessee has not earned any income from operating

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, 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

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M.M.FORGINGS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2679/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011 -2012)

801A(5).The deduction u/s 80IA would be eligible only on such surplus profits after setting off of the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The AO has relied on the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of ACIT Vs. Gold Mine and Shares & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 113 ITD 209 as well

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

disallowance U/s. 80IC - Rs. 1,68,14,24,514: 6.1. The CIT(A) is not justified in merely following the CIT(A) NFAC's preceding year's order i.e. for AY 2018-19 and erred in directing AO to adopt an incorrect margin of 6.09% instead of the margin of 11.51% as claimed by the appellant for the eligible unit

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

9 -: "5.1 All income for the purposes of computation of total income is to be classified under the following heads of income and computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IVof the Act- • Salaries • Income from house property • Profits and gains of business and profession • Capital gains • Income from other sources 5.2 The income computed under various heads

NLC INDIA LTD.,NEYVELI vs. DCIT LTU II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

section 14A read with Rule 8D. VIII. The Learned AO and CIT (A) failed to appreciate that no expenditure was incurred by the Appellant for earning the exempt income, if any, from the investment made in equity shares of the subsidiary. Disallowance of surcharge recoverable from EBs IX. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the surcharge recoverable from

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. NLC INDIA LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

section 14A read with Rule 8D. VIII. The Learned AO and CIT (A) failed to appreciate that no expenditure was incurred by the Appellant for earning the exempt income, if any, from the investment made in equity shares of the subsidiary. Disallowance of surcharge recoverable from EBs IX. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the surcharge recoverable from

NLC INDIA LTD.,NEYVELI vs. DCIT LTU II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

section 14A read with Rule 8D. VIII. The Learned AO and CIT (A) failed to appreciate that no expenditure was incurred by the Appellant for earning the exempt income, if any, from the investment made in equity shares of the subsidiary. Disallowance of surcharge recoverable from EBs IX. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the surcharge recoverable from

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. NLC INDIA LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

section 14A read with Rule 8D. VIII. The Learned AO and CIT (A) failed to appreciate that no expenditure was incurred by the Appellant for earning the exempt income, if any, from the investment made in equity shares of the subsidiary. Disallowance of surcharge recoverable from EBs IX. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the surcharge recoverable from

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

9. (SLL) is a company engaged in the business of Stevedoring, transportation, warehousing etc. During 200-01, the assessee entered into a build, operate and transfer agreement with Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB). Accordingly, the assessee has to build the coal handling equipments at Ennore Port and manage and maintain the facility for 20 years. After the expiry of 20 years

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

9. (SLL) is a company engaged in the business of Stevedoring, transportation, warehousing etc. During 200-01, the assessee entered into a build, operate and transfer agreement with Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB). Accordingly, the assessee has to build the coal handling equipments at Ennore Port and manage and maintain the facility for 20 years. After the expiry of 20 years

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

9. (SLL) is a company engaged in the business of Stevedoring, transportation, warehousing etc. During 200-01, the assessee entered into a build, operate and transfer agreement with Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB). Accordingly, the assessee has to build the coal handling equipments at Ennore Port and manage and maintain the facility for 20 years. After the expiry of 20 years

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

9 :: The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax ought to have appreciated that as per second proviso to section 153A, where assessment/reassessment for any assessment year filing within the period of six assessment years referred as in section 153A, pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 shall abate. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax ought to have

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

9 :: The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax ought to have appreciated that as per second proviso to section 153A, where assessment/reassessment for any assessment year filing within the period of six assessment years referred as in section 153A, pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 shall abate. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax ought to have