ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

transfer price of electricity generated by the assessee's windmill unit and consumed by its textile unit.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the market value of electricity supplied by the State Electricity Board (TANGEDCO) to industrial consumers should be considered for computing the Section 80-IA deduction, not the rate at which the assessee sold power to the State Electricity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHY vs. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing proceedings for Assessment Year 2018-19. It is a settled legal position that Board Circulars, Notifications and OMs are binding on the Assessing Officer. We find no infirmity in the action of CIT in invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s. 262 of the Act in passing the impugned order. The ld.CIT-DR except explaining the facts could not controvert

K V TEX FIRM,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

144B of the Act would also be applicable to the Scheme.” 21.2 Further it is submitted that the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) in WP Nos. 13353, 16141 & 16877 of 2024, has adopted the view of the Bombay High Court in the case

K V TEX FIRM,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

144B of the Act would also be applicable\nto the Scheme.”\n21.2 Further it is submitted that the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case\nof Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCircle 1(1) in WP Nos. 13353, 16141 & 16877 of 2024, has adopted the view of\nthe Bombay High Court in the case

K V TEX FIRM,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

144B of the Act would also be applicable\nto the Scheme.\"\n21.2 Further it is submitted that the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case\nof Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCircle 1(1) in WP Nos. 13353, 16141 & 16877 of 2024, has adopted the view of\nthe Bombay High Court in the case

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) report regarding transactions with Associated Enterprises. The assessee's appeals reached the ITAT, which restored the matter to the AO for examining the allowability of expenditure under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, finding the TPO reference invalid.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO was invalid and consequential adjustments could

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. HITACHI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed\nby the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपीलसं./IT(TP)A No.: 17/CHNY/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nHitachi Solutions India Private\nLimited,\nBlock 5, 10th Floor, 1/124,\nDLF IT Park, Shivaji Gardens,\nMount Poonamallee Road,\nChennai - 600 089.\nThe Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nVs. Corporate Circle- 1(1),\nNo.121, M.G.Road,\nChennai - 600 034.\n[PAN:AAACZ-1544-R]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर

Transfer Pricing (‘TP') order on 31.07.2021 proposing a\ntotal adjustment of Rs.9,63,59,905/-.\n6.\nSubsequent to the order of the TPO, the AO passed a draft assessment order\non 21.09.2021 u/s.144C r.w.s 92CA (3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the draft\nassessment order, the assessee had filed a response on 13.10.2021, intimating that\nthe assessee would prefer

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was not valid. The matter was restored to the AO for examination of expenditure allowance under Section 40A(2) of the Act. The Tribunal also found that the assessment proceedings were not time-barred. Regarding the ground of violation of natural justice, the Tribunal noted that the information was available in the public domain

INLOGIC TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP. CIRCLE 1(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3323/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

144B of the Act dated 21.10.2024 is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case. GROUNDS 3 TO 7- relationship of AE existed only for 2 months 3. The Ld. TPO/ the Ld. DRP have failed to appreciate that the appellant and Medtech Global Limited, Australia (Medtech) were Associated Enterprises (AE) only for two months during the subject

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act was passed without due/complete verification is factually incorrect. In fact, same income tax return for AY 2016-17 was take into consideration by the both ld.AO and ld.CIT wherein Schedule UD: “Unabsorbed Depreciation and allowance under section 35(4)” is finding mentioned therein as under: Assessment year Amount of brought Amount of forward unabsorbed depreciation

CT. RAMANATHAN (HUF),PUDUKKOTTAI vs. PCIT 1, MADURAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

144B of the Income Tax Act dt. 18.07.2022 is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961, I set aside the aforesaid order with the direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order as per law after making necessary

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

144B dated 05.12.2022 by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2021-22 is considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, in terms of clause (a) to Explanation 2 of Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The same is hence partly set aside, with the direction to the Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiries

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

144B. For misreporting the income penalty u/s 270A is also initiated separately. You are hereby given an opportunity to show cause why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. 3 Kindly submit your response through your registered e-filing account at www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in by 23:59 hours of 18/04/2021, whereby you may either.- a. accept

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.

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) with the approval of the Competent Authority. The TPO vide order u/s 92 CA (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20/09/2018 has not drawn any adverse inference in respect of the international transactions held by the assessee during the FY-2014-15. The scrutiny assessment proceedings were completed accepting the return of Income

SARAVANAN ARUMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

144B of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred as the\n'Act'). No return of income for AY-2014-15 was filed by the assessee in\nresponse to notice u/s 148 also. In response to show cause notice u/s\n144, the assessee had informed that it had purchased an immovable\nproperty for Rs.3,04,22,000/- as against stamp

MIHO KIKUCHI,THIRUVANNAMALAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed subject to above direction and modification in the order

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1318/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Miho Kikuchi, The Principal Commissioner No.25, Chengam Road, Vs. Of Income Tax-8, Fourth Street, Chennai. Thiruvannamalai – 606 601. Pan: Bdepm 5316B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr. L. Natarajan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay, Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai -8 In Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1063189420 (1) Dated 22.03.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S.147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.03.2022. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Framed By Ao Of National Faceless Assessment Centre Vide Order Dated 27.03.2022 U/S.147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Which Are Factual, Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

144B of the Act. For this assessee has raised various grounds which are factual, argumentative and exhaustive and hence, need not be reproduced. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and Japanese nationality by birth and is a resident of India for the relevant assessment year 2015-16 relevant to financial year 2014- 15. The assessee

SANJJAY SAUMYHA,SALEM vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.392/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mrs. Sanjjay Saumyha Pcit बनाम/ 251 A, Omalur Main Road, Swarnapuri, Coimbatore-1. Vs. Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeyps-0117-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

section 14 7 r.w.s 144B, the Assessing Officer had mentioned that the Assessee had complied and replied to the notices on 31/08/2021 in Page no. 4 of the assessment order. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and submitted that the case was reopened specifically to examine the issue as raised in the revisionary order. The Ld. AR stated that

M/S. SECUREKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3232/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Securekloud Technologies Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Bascon Futura Sv 5Th Floor, Corporate Circle 3(1), 10/1 Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aabcp6266D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 18 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 18 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said