ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PRUDENTIAL SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITOOR

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2298/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Prudential Sugar Corporation Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Ltu, Circle -1, Prudential Nagar, Chennai. Koppedu Post, Nindra, Mandal – 517 587. [Pan:Aaacp-4338-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 50B of the Act, the consideration received for slump sale was Rs.1,30,15,59,570/- and net worth of undertaking was determined at Rs.77,68

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

68,333/-.\n9.2\nThe AO in the course of assessment is noted to have taken\ncognizance of the above narrated facts relating to the sale of windmill\ndivision by the assessee. According to the AO, in order to qualify as\n`slump sale' under section 2(42C) of the Act, one of the conditions to be\nsatisfied was that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are 22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1388/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,93,580/-. Subsequently filed revised return on ITA No.1388 & 1647/2015. :- 3 -: 28.02.2011 with total income of "27,44,14,678/- and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act dated 25.08.2011 was issued. In compliance to notices, the ld. Authorised Representative appeared from time to time and submitted details

CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are 22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1388/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,93,580/-. Subsequently filed revised return on ITA No.1388 & 1647/2015. :- 3 -: 28.02.2011 with total income of "27,44,14,678/- and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act dated 25.08.2011 was issued. In compliance to notices, the ld. Authorised Representative appeared from time to time and submitted details

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

68,208 was carried forward and was duly taken into account in the next assessment year. In the circumstances, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the CIT(A). The ground no. 4 is, accordingly rejected. 36. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed’’. Taking cue from the same and more

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

68,208 was carried forward and was duly taken into account in the next assessment year. In the circumstances, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the CIT(A). The ground no. 4 is, accordingly rejected. 36. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed’’. Taking cue from the same and more

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

68,208 was carried forward and was duly taken into account in the next assessment year. In the circumstances, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the CIT(A). The ground no. 4 is, accordingly rejected. 36. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed’’. Taking cue from the same and more

PROFILE GEARS & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.286/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

50B. Proceedings u/s.263 was initiated and the CIT-III vide order in C.No.3033/12/III/2010-11 dated 07.03.2011 directed the Assessing Officer to set aside the original assessment order and pas a fresh order in accordance with law. In order to complete the assessment proceedings u/s.263 a notice u/s.143(2) was issued. During the course of assessment, when M/s. SRP Tools