DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

va) and (iv). Further, the AO himself had accepted the pleas of the appellant to set off unabsorbed depreciation vide his order u/s.154 dated 22.11.2009. Thus, it cannot be stated that the assessee has discontinued the business and it is incorrect to disallow business expenditure and current depreciation. Hence, the arguments of the AR are acceptable for the reasoning above

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SRINIVASA FASHIONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

1)(va) - 129,340 delayed remittance of employees contribution to PF & ESI Total 40,66,15,996 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) sustained both disallowances on account of payment made to fictitious transporters and disallowances u/s.40A(3). 6. The assessee further challenged the order of the CIT(A) before this Tribunal

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

1)(va) - 129,340 delayed remittance of employees contribution to PF & ESI Total 40,66,15,996 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) sustained both disallowances on account of payment made to fictitious transporters and disallowances u/s.40A(3). 6. The assessee further challenged the order of the CIT(A) before this Tribunal

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

17 others) and M/s Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. (7 ITA No. 141/Hyd/2007 & Others). and Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT 84 TTJ (Mum) 646. 6. On examining the facts of assessee's case it is noticed that assessee has carried out construction work and profits earned from this activity is being claimed as deduction under section 80IA(4). Sub-section (1

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

17 others) and M/s Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. (7 ITA No. 141/Hyd/2007 & Others). and Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT 84 TTJ (Mum) 646. 6. On examining the facts of assessee's case it is noticed that assessee has carried out construction work and profits earned from this activity is being claimed as deduction under section 80IA(4). Sub-section (1

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

17 -: that re-opening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act was validly initiated by AO u/s 147 of the 1961 Act , by holding as under: “5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the ld.AR. I have also gone through the decisions and the circular relied

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

17 -: that re-opening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act was validly initiated by AO u/s 147 of the 1961 Act , by holding as under: “5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the ld.AR. I have also gone through the decisions and the circular relied

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

17 -: that re-opening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act was validly initiated by AO u/s 147 of the 1961 Act , by holding as under: “5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the ld.AR. I have also gone through the decisions and the circular relied

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

17 -: that re-opening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act was validly initiated by AO u/s 147 of the 1961 Act , by holding as under: “5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the ld.AR. I have also gone through the decisions and the circular relied

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1377/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Va Tech Wabag Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 17, “Wabag House”, 200 Feet Vs. Income Tax, Thoraipakkam – Pallavaram Main Company Circle Iii(4), Road, Sunnambu Kolathur, Chennai. Chennai 600 117. [Pan:Aabcv0225G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1517/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Va Tech Wabag Limited, Income Tax, No. 17, “Wabag House”, 200 Feet Company Circle Iii(4), Thoraipakkam – Pallavaram Main Chennai Road, Sunnambu Kolathur, Chennai 600 117. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : S/Shri R, Venkatraman, Lakshmi Sriram & B. Sivaraman, Advocates ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Chennai Dated 29.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2

VA Tech Wabag Limited, Income Tax, No. 17, “Wabag House”, 200 Feet Company Circle III(4), Thoraipakkam – Pallavaram Main Chennai Road, Sunnambu Kolathur, Chennai 600 117. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : S/Shri R, Venkatraman, Lakshmi Sriram & B. Sivaraman, Advocates ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1377/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Va Tech Wabag Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 17, “Wabag House”, 200 Feet Vs. Income Tax, Thoraipakkam – Pallavaram Main Company Circle Iii(4), Road, Sunnambu Kolathur, Chennai. Chennai 600 117. [Pan:Aabcv0225G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1517/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Va Tech Wabag Limited, Income Tax, No. 17, “Wabag House”, 200 Feet Company Circle Iii(4), Thoraipakkam – Pallavaram Main Chennai Road, Sunnambu Kolathur, Chennai 600 117. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : S/Shri R, Venkatraman, Lakshmi Sriram & B. Sivaraman, Advocates ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Chennai Dated 29.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2

VA Tech Wabag Limited, Income Tax, No. 17, “Wabag House”, 200 Feet Company Circle III(4), Thoraipakkam – Pallavaram Main Chennai Road, Sunnambu Kolathur, Chennai 600 117. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : S/Shri R, Venkatraman, Lakshmi Sriram & B. Sivaraman, Advocates ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERAALS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

va 17 respectively. Thus, the various grounds raised upon these issues are treated grounds raised upon these issues are treated partly allowed. partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, both the assessee and Aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, both the assessee and Aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, both the assessee