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

carried forward to AY 2011-12 for set off is accepted, it will render the above non obstante provisions of section 801A(5), providing the eligible unit to be deemed as the only source of income of the assessee, as nugatory and therefore any such interpretation is bound to be rejected as the same cannot be the intent

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S CASAGRAND BUILDER PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.720/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jcit(Osd) M/S. Casagrand Premier Builder Limited बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) (Earlier Known As M/S Casa Grand Builder P. Ltd.) 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, New No.111, Old No.59. Lb Chennai. / Vs. Road, Thiruvanmiyur,Chennai-600 041 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-2758-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath & Sh. V. Nanda Kumar Ld. Cit-Drs A/W Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) - Ld.Ar

carry forward loss could not be adjudicated on standalone basis. The AO should have first reassessed the allowability of loss

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

carry forward accumulated ITA Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 (AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) M/s. Bharat Technologies – Auto Components Ltd. :: 9 :: business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of UPSL; to consider to exempt the company from the provisions of Sec.41(1) & Sec.43B of the Act, etc, which are the subject matter of grounds of appeal before this Tribunal. According

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

carry forward accumulated ITA Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 (AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) M/s. Bharat Technologies – Auto Components Ltd. :: 9 :: business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of UPSL; to consider to exempt the company from the provisions of Sec.41(1) & Sec.43B of the Act, etc, which are the subject matter of grounds of appeal before this Tribunal. According

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

carry forward accumulated ITA Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 (AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) M/s. Bharat Technologies – Auto Components Ltd. :: 9 :: business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of UPSL; to consider to exempt the company from the provisions of Sec.41(1) & Sec.43B of the Act, etc, which are the subject matter of grounds of appeal before this Tribunal. According

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY FUTURE SOFT PRIVATE LIMITED), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 V. The Acit, Capgemini Technology Corporate Circle-1(1), Services India Ltd., Block 3, ‘C’ Wing, 4Th Floor, Chennai. Capgemini Knowledge Park, Airoli Knowledge Park, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 708. [Pan: Aaacf 0482 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

carried forward or set- off of any loss. Filing a revised return under Section 139(5) of the IT Act and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption, which was specifically not claimed earlier while filing the original return of income is not permissible. By filing the revised return of income, the assessee cannot be permitted to substitute

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE, MADURAI vs. M/S RAMCO SYSTEMS LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

loss,\nwhen carried forward, was eligible for set off only against business income\nand not against any other head of income. And that the carry forward was\nalso restricted to eight assessment years succeeding the assessment year\nin which the depreciation was first computed. Hence, the set off of\nunabsorbed depreciation for AY 2000-01 of Rs.1

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

loss, it does not include unabsorbed depreciation or unabsorbed development rebate. We agree with the High Court." In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Subhulaxmi Mills Ltd, (supra) the assessee has claimed that the position is thus settled that the carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation is not governed

FLSMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT- 1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1636/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Flsmidth Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam Vs. Income Tax-1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N]

loss to be carried forward for further orders. iv. The assessee has shown Rs.1,08,26,88,201/- as unearned revenue which have been taxed as income as the assessee followed approval methods. 4. The Ld. PCIT after examining the assessment order passed order u/s. 147 of the Act and the case record has observed that

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

carried forward and not set off against other income as explained in page 16 para 2. The Ld. PCIT has not given any findings as to why the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly is invalid as per the decisions cited above. 6. Per contra, the ld.DR relied

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

carried forward and not set off against other income as explained in page 16 para 2. The Ld. PCIT has not given any findings as to why the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly is invalid as per the decisions cited above. 6. Per contra, the ld.DR relied

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIANANCE CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

Reassessment\ncannot be made\nWherein it was held that assessing officer had allowed a deduction\nafter making inquiries and considering the reply of the assessee,\nthen the subsequent withdrawal of the same under Section 148\namounts to change of opinion which is invalid In this connection the\nLd.AR placed reliance on below judicial precedents\nThe Hon'ble Bombay High Court

TSL TECHNO SERVICES LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP WARD 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1142/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Ttk Healthe Care Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, (Earlier Known As M/S. Tsl Vs. Ward-3(1), Techno Services Ltd.), Chennai. No.6, Cathedral Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086. [Pan: Aabct 3312J]

reassessment order and based on the petition made by the appellant the Assessing Officer rectified some errors vide the order u/s.154 dated 21stApril2022 (DIN No.ITBA/REC/M/154_1/2022-23/104281 3970(1)) but erroneously considered the set-off of carry forward losses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Reassessment\ncannot be made\nWherein it was held that assessing officer had allowed a deduction\nafter making inquiries and considering the reply of the assessee,\nthen the subsequent withdrawal of the same under Section 148\namounts to change of opinion which is invalid In this connection the\nLd.AR placed reliance on below judicial precedents\nThe Hon'ble Bombay High Court

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

forward of loss of Rs.79.27 crore. :-5-: ITA. No.:1018/Chny/2025 13. Also, it is seen from the submission of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company has Equity Investment aggregating to Rs.20,877.28 Lacs in UCAL Holdings Inc. USA (Previously Amtec Precision Products Inc.) a Wholly Owned Subsidiary. It has been stated by the assessee that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORP CIRCLE II MADURAI, MADURAI vs. VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LIMITED, VIRUDHUNAGAR

carry forward of loss of Rs.19,55,44,786/-. The return was\nselected for scrutiny under CASS, initially to examine large interest\nexpenditure relatable to exempt income u/s. 14A. After\nexamination, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) accepted the assessee's\nexplanation and made no disallowance u/s. 14A.\nHowever, the assessment culminated in disputes on two issues:\n:-3-:\nITA

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

Reassessment • cannot be made Wherein it was held that assessing officer had allowed a deduction after making inquiries and considering the reply of the assessee, then the subsequent withdrawal of the same under Section 148 amounts to change of opinion which is invalid In this connection the Ld.AR placed reliance on below judicial precedents - The Hon’ble Bombay High Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

Reassessment • cannot be made Wherein it was held that assessing officer had allowed a deduction after making inquiries and considering the reply of the assessee, then the subsequent withdrawal of the same under Section 148 amounts to change of opinion which is invalid In this connection the Ld.AR placed reliance on below judicial precedents - The Hon’ble Bombay High Court