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

reassessment order dated 31.01.2023 consequent to the DRP’s direction dated 09.01.2023 is bad in law as the same is time barred. The Ld.AR submitted if the DRP’s e-mail dated 09.01.2023 is reckoned as a direction in terms of Section 144C(5) of the Act, the same is beyond time as per Section 144C

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

reassessment order dated 31.01.2023 consequent to the DRP’s direction dated 09.01.2023 is bad in law as the same is time barred. The Ld.AR submitted if the DRP’s e-mail dated 09.01.2023 is reckoned as a direction in terms of Section 144C(5) of the Act, the same is beyond time as per Section 144C

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

8. The ld.counsel for the assessee first of all took us through the provisions of section 144C of the Act, wherein the provision envisaged preparing of draft assessment order by the AO in term of section 144C(1) of the Act and thereafter the procedure prescribed for challenging before DRP as well as acceptance given by assessee of the variations

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

8 of 21 (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company. [12] In order to successfully invoke the provisions of Section 144C, thus, two basic conditions are required

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

8 In view of all that have been set out supra, the following directions are given by consent : a) Para 4 alone of the order dated 04.04.2017 made in M.P.No.218/Mds/2016 in I.T.A.No.322/Mds/2016 is set aside; b) Axiomatically, the other parts of the operative portion of the order dated 4.4.2017 in M.P.No.218/Mds/2016 in I.T.A.No.322/Mds/2016 being paragraphs 4.1.and

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

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

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)

8 I.T.A. No. 870/Chny/20 1. The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income or profits or gains chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and; 2. The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either omission or failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts

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

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

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

8. The Id. AR Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate agitated the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act and submits that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 31.07.2022 is barred by limitation under section 149 of the Act. He further submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1955 & 1956/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Maharaja Refineries, # 128, Bhavani Road, Erode-638 004. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Erode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaffs-8491-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Both Dated 07.06.2024 For

8. Having not satisfied with order of the AO, assessee challenged the order of AO before the Id. CIT(A) who passed the following order: 4.3 Ground No.3 pertains to applicability of the second proviso to the section 153(5) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that the assessment was barred by limitation and the second proviso

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1955 & 1956/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Maharaja Refineries, # 128, Bhavani Road, Erode-638 004. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Erode. Pan: Aaffs-8491-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Both Dated 07.06.2024 For

144C(13) of the IT Act was passed on 26.09.2017 by making addition to the extent of Rs.7,51,83,428/-. Further, the assessee has filed appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel". The Dispute Panel has passed the order u/s 144(5) of the IT Act on 11.09.2017, Resolution Panel has rejecting the appeals Aggrieved by this order the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

reassessment , the appellant pleaded that entered into an agreement with M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014) - 6 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 Limited (“SICCL”) on December 29, 2006 to develop 196.97 acres of agriculture land situated at Chauma Village, Dist. Gurgaon, State of Haryana as residential and commercial

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

reassessment , the appellant pleaded that entered into an agreement with M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014) - 6 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 Limited (“SICCL”) on December 29, 2006 to develop 196.97 acres of agriculture land situated at Chauma Village, Dist. Gurgaon, State of Haryana as residential and commercial

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

reassessment , the appellant pleaded that entered into an agreement with M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014) - 6 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 Limited (“SICCL”) on December 29, 2006 to develop 196.97 acres of agriculture land situated at Chauma Village, Dist. Gurgaon, State of Haryana as residential and commercial

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

reassessment , the appellant pleaded that entered into an agreement with M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014) - 6 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 Limited (“SICCL”) on December 29, 2006 to develop 196.97 acres of agriculture land situated at Chauma Village, Dist. Gurgaon, State of Haryana as residential and commercial