M/S MACRO MARVEL PROJECTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD-IV(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowing the appellant's claim u/s 80IB(10). The grounds of the appellant in this regard thus fail.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 7. Now, Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate argued that the commercial area is only to the extent of 98.4 sq.m. which is for the daily needs of the residents

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S MACRO MARVEL PROJECTS LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowing the appellant's claim u/s 80IB(10). The grounds of the appellant in this regard thus fail.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 7. Now, Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate argued that the commercial area is only to the extent of 98.4 sq.m. which is for the daily needs of the residents

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A.L.HOMES, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowance of Rs.19,99,981/- u/s 801B(10). 2.1 The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that new condition was introduced under clause (e) and (f) of section 801B(10) which reads as under”- “Not more than one residential unit in the housing project is allotted to any person not being an individual” Provisions of section 801B(10(f) reads

ACIT, MADURAI vs. THE METAL POWDER COMPANY LTD., MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

disallowances assessed total income "25,14,99,930/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The ld. Authorised Representative raised grounds on the two disputed issues that the adjustment of loss of one unit against profit of another unit by ld. AO without following earlier year’s ITA No.1143/Mds/2014

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

9. Though the ITAT has only remitted the issue of considering the expenses against interest receipts from FDs, the Assessing officer made an assessment afresh u/s 143(3) r/w 254 on 13/04/2022 as if the assessment itself is set aside and determined the taxable income as under after considering the interest paid against interest receipts from FDs and savings Bank

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

9. Though the ITAT has only remitted the issue of considering the expenses against interest receipts from FDs, the Assessing officer made an assessment afresh u/s 143(3) r/w 254 on 13/04/2022 as if the assessment itself is set aside and determined the taxable income as under after considering the interest paid against interest receipts from FDs and savings Bank

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

9. Though the ITAT has only remitted the issue of considering the expenses against interest receipts from FDs, the Assessing officer made an assessment afresh u/s 143(3) r/w 254 on 13/04/2022 as if the assessment itself is set aside and determined the taxable income as under after considering the interest paid against interest receipts from FDs and savings Bank

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPOLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

9. Though the ITAT has only remitted the issue of considering the expenses against interest receipts from FDs, the Assessing officer made an assessment afresh u/s 143(3) r/w 254 on 13/04/2022 as if the assessment itself is set aside and determined the taxable income as under after considering the interest paid against interest receipts from FDs and savings Bank

COOPER BUSSMANN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1559 To 1563, 2592 - 2594/Chny/2014) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 1662 & 1663/Chny/2016 & 178/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Vs The Jcit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Range – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

disallowance U/s.80IB, the ld.AR submitted against the various findings recorded by the lower authorities issue- wise as under: 1. With regard to the finding that investment was not substantial, the ld.AR submitted that the issue of substantial investment is relevant to be examined when the undertaking manufactures same products as the old undertaking, so as to establish that the undertaking

COOPER BUSSMANN INDIA PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. JCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1559 To 1563, 2592 - 2594/Chny/2014) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 1662 & 1663/Chny/2016 & 178/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Vs The Jcit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Range – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

disallowance U/s.80IB, the ld.AR submitted against the various findings recorded by the lower authorities issue- wise as under: 1. With regard to the finding that investment was not substantial, the ld.AR submitted that the issue of substantial investment is relevant to be examined when the undertaking manufactures same products as the old undertaking, so as to establish that the undertaking

COOPER BUSSMANN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1559 To 1563, 2592 - 2594/Chny/2014) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 1662 & 1663/Chny/2016 & 178/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Vs The Jcit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Range – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

disallowance U/s.80IB, the ld.AR submitted against the various findings recorded by the lower authorities issue- wise as under: 1. With regard to the finding that investment was not substantial, the ld.AR submitted that the issue of substantial investment is relevant to be examined when the undertaking manufactures same products as the old undertaking, so as to establish that the undertaking