ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATES LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT,CORP. CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAIQ

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

68 of the Act, on the ground that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the assessee did not file necessary certificate in Form 10CCB of the Act along with the return of income, which was filed on 18.7.2005 declaring the income as Rs.1,02,11,036/-. 3. As against the disallowance of the claim, the assessee filed an appeal before

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

68,84,120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,TUTUCORIN vs. DCIT, CC-1,, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

68,84,120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

68,84,120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

68,84,120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPUR vs. SRI SHANMUGAVEL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

801A(8) of the Act whereby the decision of the market value has been provided by the assessee. In view of the above, none of the judgments relied upon by the assessee are applicable to the facts of the present case. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Power Steel (supra) has held in Para

WHEELS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-2, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

68,083/-. 7.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the losses of earlier year assessment years shall not be set off against the total income of the 80IC undertaking for arriving at the benefit available for the current assessment year. Appellant relies on the decision of Honb'le Madras High Court in the case

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

801A and claimed correctly. However, keeping in view of the objections raised by the Assessing Officer the claim of deduction u/s 8OlA on the ground that the appellant has shown magnified profits by making some computation errors by not allocating the common expenditure while working out the profits of the undertaking. Such expenditure which was not considered

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

801A and claimed correctly. However, keeping in view of the objections raised by the Assessing Officer the claim of deduction u/s 8OlA on the ground that the appellant has shown magnified profits by making some computation errors by not allocating the common expenditure while working out the profits of the undertaking. Such expenditure which was not considered

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

801A and claimed correctly. However, keeping in view of the objections raised by the Assessing Officer the claim of deduction u/s 8OlA on the ground that the appellant has shown magnified profits by making some computation errors by not allocating the common expenditure while working out the profits of the undertaking. Such expenditure which was not considered

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

68,30,588/- (Short credit Rs.6,44,997/-) Refund due Rs.1,80,69,203/- Department went for appeal against CIT(A) order on our first appeal ITAT which was rejected and allowed the 25/01/2017 claim of deduction u/s 80lA and the forex loss claimed High Court 07.03.2019 Dismissed department appeal TCA Nos.196 to 201 of 2019 ACIT (after 11/03/2014

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JSR INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

801A of the Act was not made by the assesse in the original ITR filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) o filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) on 30.11.2016. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the The Ld.CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 14A is applicable prospectively from with effect from 1.4.2022 and not for the year under appeal. 3.3. Without prejudice to above grounds, even if Rule 8D is held as applicable, investments from which no dividend income is earned should not be considered while applying Rule 8D as held in Appellant's own case