HANEDA TRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SDN BHN,WEST MALAYSIA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1072 & 2073/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Haneda Trading & The Deputy Commissioner Construction Sdn Bhd, Vs. Of Income Tax, Suite 10-01 Subang Square, Circle 1(2), Corporate Tower, Chennai. 47500, Jalan Ss, 15/4G, Subang Jaya Selangor, West Malaysia Pan: Aagch 2363G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

Section 144C(12) & 144C(13) of the Act with regard to ITA No.1072 & 2073/CHNY/2024 the time limit provided for passing the final reassessment

HANEDA TRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD,WEST MALAYSIA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1072 & 2073/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Haneda Trading & The Deputy Commissioner Construction Sdn Bhd, Vs. Of Income Tax, Suite 10-01 Subang Square, Circle 1(2), Corporate Tower, Chennai. 47500, Jalan Ss, 15/4G, Subang Jaya Selangor, West Malaysia Pan: Aagch 2363G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

Section 144C(12) & 144C(13) of the Act with regard to ITA No.1072 & 2073/CHNY/2024 the time limit provided for passing the final reassessment

M/S. DORLING KINDERSLEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 144C can be held to be applicable only prospectively i.e. from the assessment year 2011-12. The ld.counsel also took us through the timelimit provided u/s.153 of the Act and stated that the thirty three months provided in the Act by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.06.2007 reads as under:- 153. Time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments

AALAYA JEWEL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P George

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA. (15) For the purposes of this section,- (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose ; (b) "eligible assessee" means,- (i) any person in whose

AALAYA JEWEL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P George

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA. (15) For the purposes of this section,- (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose ; (b) "eligible assessee" means,- (i) any person in whose

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence to, or to give effect to, any findings or direction contained in an order under section 250, section 254………on or before twelve months from the end of the month in such order is received or passed by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 144C of the Act because the AO has become functus officio once demand is determined and notice u/s.156 of the Act along with initiation of penalty order is passed, the AO ceased with the jurisdiction. The subsequent action of the AO in passing final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s 144(5) of the Act dated

REGEN RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION GLOBAL LTD, CYPRUS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.153/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Income Tax, Cyprus International Taxation – 2(1), C/O M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Chennai – 34. Krm Plaza, 7Th Floor, North Tower, No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aafcr0685N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA. (15) For the purposes of this section,- (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose ; (b) "eligible assessee" means,- (i) any person in whose

DHANUSHKODI HARIDEERTHAM,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, INTL TAXNL WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

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

sections": [ "147", "143(3)", "148", "142(1)", "148A", "149", "144C(13)", "56(2)(vii)", "133(6)", "144C(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

M/S. CASTLEWICK FZE,DUBAI vs. ACIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\ncalled 'the Act'). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.\n2.\nBrief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a\ncompany incorporated in UAE. During the assessment year 2018-19,\nthe assessee was in receipt of income of Rs.90 lakhs from an Indian\ncustomer named M/s. Gannon Dunkerley

DCIT,CC-2(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S, JAN DE NUL DREDGING (I)(P)LTD, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.870/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Jan De Nul Dredging (I)(P) Ltd., “Capital”, 10Th Floor, No. 554/555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Mount Road, Chennai 600 018. Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacj6482G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. & Ms. C. Sowndarya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 26.08.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Dredging Services & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 30.11.2011 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.3,86,20,850/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Processed Under Section 143(1)

144C of the Act dated 31.03.2015. Nowhere in the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment, the Assessing Officer has made a mention about failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that year or failure on part 9 I.T.A. No. 870/Chny/20 of the assessee to make a return

YUGENDIRAN VISHNUPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

144C(5) dated 26.02.2024. 2. The registry has noted delay of 202 days in filing the appeals. Considering the reasons as stated in the affidavit by the Assessee i.e; ‘instead of preferring appeals before the Tribunal had filed appeals before the CIT(A)’, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication

YUGENDIRAN VISHNUPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

144C(5) dated 26.02.2024. 2. The registry has noted delay of 202 days in filing the appeals. Considering the reasons as stated in the affidavit by the Assessee i.e; ‘instead of preferring appeals before the Tribunal had filed appeals before the CIT(A)’, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The detailed grounds of appeal being independent and without prejudice to one another, including the position in law and facts is set out in the ensuing paragraphs. 2. Ground 2 Addition of Guarantee Fees

RAMASAMY PUSHPA,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.489/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ramasamy Pushpa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 2/31, Sankarampalayam Village, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Kumaripalayam Post, Chennai. Namakkal 637 015. [Pan:Cvwpp7128R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]

section 144C of the Act is not maintainable as the assessee was not an “eligible assessee” in the year under consideration. 3 I.T.A. No.489/Chny/25 4. The ld. DR Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. Having heard the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, we note that admittedly

DASSAULT SYSTEMES SIMULIA CORP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-1 (1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.349/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers, International Taxation 1(1) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aadcd 3705D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

reassessment proceedings merely reflects a "change in opinion" and therefore, lacks jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act and thus, is invalid and void ab initio. 3.6. The Ld. AO erred in passing an order on an issue different from the reason for which it was reopened. The Ld. AO passed an order restricting the TDS credits available in Form

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, ERODE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be,\nsuch effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in\nwhich order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 is received\nby the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

reassessment or fresh order under section 92CA, as\nthe case may be, such effect shall be given within a\nperiod of three months from the end of the month in\nwhich order under section 250 or section 254 or section\n260 or section 262 is received by the Principal Chief\nCommissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

reassessment proceedings were concluded with an order dated\n25.11.2019, passed under Sections 143(3) read with 147 and 144C(13)\nof the Act. In this