ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

35D(2)(c) (iv) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of the assessee is dismissed. 3.7 In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2834/Mds/2014 of assessment year 1995-1996 is dismissed. ITA Nos.2825 to 2827, 2834 :- 12 -: to 2839/Mds/2014. 4. ITA No.2835/Mds/2014 of assessment year 2004-2005:- The sole substantive ground raised by the assessee is that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

35D(2)(c) (iv) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of the assessee is dismissed. 3.7 In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2834/Mds/2014 of assessment year 1995-1996 is dismissed. ITA Nos.2825 to 2827, 2834 :- 12 -: to 2839/Mds/2014. 4. ITA No.2835/Mds/2014 of assessment year 2004-2005:- The sole substantive ground raised by the assessee is that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

35D of the Act and it has to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), in fact, has placed his reliance in India Cements Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

35D of the Act and it has to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), in fact, has placed his reliance in India Cements Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

35D of the Act and it has to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), in fact, has placed his reliance in India Cements Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

35D of the Act and it has to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), in fact, has placed his reliance in India Cements Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

35D of the Act and it has to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), in fact, has placed his reliance in India Cements Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

35D of the Act and it has to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), in fact, has placed his reliance in India Cements Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S MIDAS GOLDEN DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2562/Chny/2017 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 68 of the Act. 11. The Review application filed against the above decision was dismissed by a speaking order as reported in (2020) 117 taxmann.com 752 (SC). 12.From the facts of the case, which we have set out in the preceding paragraphs, it is clear that the assessee has not discharged the legal obligation cast upon them

M/S. ACCURATE DATA CONVERTORS P. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2514/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2009-10

35D amortization of preliminary expenses. Similarly in the case of CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. cited supra also the notice u/s.148 was issued beyond four years and the issue was revenue expenditure or capital :- 6 -: expenditure. In both the cases inferences can be drawn on both side i.e capital or revenue. In both the cases there was no Form

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MODINE THERNAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

section 35D has no application to the facts of the case. 2.3 Having regard to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd, 2001 250 ITR 338 (Del) has held that fees paid for increase of share capital is not deductible, that fees paid for increase in authorized share capital

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]

68,22,748/-. Combined profit of two units is Rs. 2,22,65,415/- itself proves that the assessee's contention is wrong. The AO observed that consequently in DTA unit, whose income is chargeable to income tax but it does not have any deduction/exemption benefit u/s 10AA , consequently huge artificial losses are created by deliberately keeping the processing charges

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]

68,22,748/-. Combined profit of two units is Rs. 2,22,65,415/- itself proves that the assessee's contention is wrong. The AO observed that consequently in DTA unit, whose income is chargeable to income tax but it does not have any deduction/exemption benefit u/s 10AA , consequently huge artificial losses are created by deliberately keeping the processing charges

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]

68,22,748/-. Combined profit of two units is Rs. 2,22,65,415/- itself proves that the assessee's contention is wrong. The AO observed that consequently in DTA unit, whose income is chargeable to income tax but it does not have any deduction/exemption benefit u/s 10AA , consequently huge artificial losses are created by deliberately keeping the processing charges

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]

68,22,748/-. Combined profit of two units is Rs. 2,22,65,415/- itself proves that the assessee's contention is wrong. The AO observed that consequently in DTA unit, whose income is chargeable to income tax but it does not have any deduction/exemption benefit u/s 10AA , consequently huge artificial losses are created by deliberately keeping the processing charges

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]

68,22,748/-. Combined profit of two units is Rs. 2,22,65,415/- itself proves that the assessee's contention is wrong. The AO observed that consequently in DTA unit, whose income is chargeable to income tax but it does not have any deduction/exemption benefit u/s 10AA , consequently huge artificial losses are created by deliberately keeping the processing charges

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]

68,22,748/-. Combined profit of two units is Rs. 2,22,65,415/- itself proves that the assessee's contention is wrong. The AO observed that consequently in DTA unit, whose income is chargeable to income tax but it does not have any deduction/exemption benefit u/s 10AA , consequently huge artificial losses are created by deliberately keeping the processing charges

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MALLADI DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

35D, 35DD etc, no deduction can be allowed to other expenses. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee had made alternate plea and argued that in case the earlier expenditure cannot be allowed as deduction then expenditure incurred during the relevant financial year should be allowed in full because the same is incurred wholly and exclusively for the business