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

transferred to the Central Government, State Government local authority or any other statutory authority" (also ref. CBDT Circular no. 14/2001 dated 9/11/2001) developed and begins to operate. Further, as can be made out from the section the deduction will be in respect of income generated from operation of the infrastructure facility in the following specified years as mentioned

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

transferred to the Central Government, State Government local authority or any other statutory authority" (also ref. CBDT Circular no. 14/2001 dated 9/11/2001) developed and begins to operate. Further, as can be made out from the section the deduction will be in respect of income generated from operation of the infrastructure facility in the following specified years as mentioned

K.G. DENIM LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, TP-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1718/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 K G Denim Limited, Dcit, 1, Thenthirumalai, V. Tp-2(1), Jadayampalayam B.O., Chennai. Dhoddabavi, Coimbatore – 641 302. [Pan: Aaack-7940-C] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

4. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the twin conditions prescribed for assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act were not satisfied concurrently on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and hence ought to have appreciated that the order of revision under consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable

DCIT , COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED , ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

transferred to the Central Government, State Government local\nauthority or any other statutory authority\"\n(also ref. CBDT Circular no. 14/2001 dated 9/11/2001)\nThus, as contained in the above clarification an assessee is entitled to\ndeduction under section 80IA only after the infrastructure facility is\ndeveloped and begins to operate. Further, as can be made out from\nthe section

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\ndismissed

transferred to the Central Government, State Government local\nauthority or any other statutory authority\"\n(also ref. CBDT Circular no. 14/2001 dated 9/11/2001)\nThus, as contained in the above clarification an assessee is entitled to\ndeduction under section 80IA only after the infrastructure facility is\ndeveloped and begins to operate. Further, as can be made out from\nthe section

GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री जगदीश, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष\nBEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nआयकर अपीलसं/.ITA No.:1088/CHNY/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18\n&\nS.A. No. 48/Chny/2025 [In ITA No. 1088/Chny/2025\nGokulakrishna,\nD 401, Purva Jade, Arcot Road,\nValasaravakkam, Chennai

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

C' above) is more than 50% of the total technical\nmanpower of new unit, i.e., LU2 (i.e., 1025 employees – refer ‘E' above), the\ndeduction under Section 10AA of the Act cannot be denied as prescribed\nunder Para 4 of Circular 14/2014 (Refer Page 8 of Final Assessment order for\nAY 2016-17).\n26. Further, the Id.AR relied upon Instruction

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

C' above) is more than 50% of the total technical\nmanpower of new unit, i.e., LU2 (i.e., 1025 employees – refer ‘E' above), the\ndeduction under Section 10AA of the Act cannot be denied as prescribed\nunder Para 4 of Circular 14/2014 (Refer Page 8 of Final Assessment order for\nAY 2016-17).\n\n26.\nFurther, the Id.AR relied upon

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

c. Increase in no of employees of the existing unit LU1 has become – 107% d. Investments in existing unit LU1 has become 135% 35. Further, the ld.AR stated that there is not even a reduction in anyone parameter. At any rate, section 10AA(4) of the Act is an anti-avoidance provision which should be strictly construed and when

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)

C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं"ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1260/CHNY/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, Income Tax, Vs. Dalmiapuram, Circle 1(1), Kallakudi

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 Prabhu Spining Mills Private 121, Adarns Plaza, Vs. Limited, 60, Feet Road, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 602. Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

4. Division 20.04.2010 40,93,529 3.39 1,38,77,063 VII/2009-10 5. Division 18.08.2011 1,11,31,745 3.39 3,77,36,616 VIII/2011-12 Total 10,69,94,336 5. The TPO thus determined the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of electricity transferred from section 80-IA eligible windmill division of the assessee to the textile division

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

4 :: [2024] 460 ITR 162 (SC) wherein it was held that the market value of the power supplied for captive consumption should be considered at the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to its end consumers and not at the rate at which an assessee sells to the State Electricity Board. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid

BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS LIMITED ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.939/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of 1212, Trichy Road, Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 018. Vs. Corporate Circle-1, [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.946/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, 1212, Trichy Road, Central Circle-3(2), Vs. Coimbatore – 641 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Senthil Kumar, Cit : 15.05.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manomohan Das, J.M: Aforesaid Two Appeals Nos. Ita/939/Chny/2022 & Ita 946/Chny/ 2022 Filed By Assessee & Department Respectively Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 17-08-2022 For The

Transfer Pricing Officer for ascertaining the Arms Length Price. However, the Ld. TPO did not propose/suggest any adjustment. There was a claim for additional depreciation at 20% by the assessee on the plant and machinery installed in the co-generation Unit by him. However, the Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee ITA Nos.939 & 946/Chny/2022 :- 4 -: and completed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.939/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of 1212, Trichy Road, Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 018. Vs. Corporate Circle-1, [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.946/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, 1212, Trichy Road, Central Circle-3(2), Vs. Coimbatore – 641 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb-8933-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Senthil Kumar, Cit : 15.05.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manomohan Das, J.M: Aforesaid Two Appeals Nos. Ita/939/Chny/2022 & Ita 946/Chny/ 2022 Filed By Assessee & Department Respectively Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 17-08-2022 For The

Transfer Pricing Officer for ascertaining the Arms Length Price. However, the Ld. TPO did not propose/suggest any adjustment. There was a claim for additional depreciation at 20% by the assessee on the plant and machinery installed in the co-generation Unit by him. However, the Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee ITA Nos.939 & 946/Chny/2022 :- 4 -: and completed

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.393/Chny/2018 & आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.89/Chny/2018 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Titan Company Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income No.3, Spicot Industrial Complex, Vs. Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. Ltu-2, [Pan: Aaact 5131A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing (TP) adjustment related to the claim u/s. 80IC ITA No.393/Chny/2015 & IT(TP)A No.89/Chny/2018 Titan Company Ltd. :- 3 -: of the Act. For the first two issues, the assessee placed reliance on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the Assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years, vide ITA Nos. 518, 505– 507/2018 dated

HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

c) cost plus method; (d) profit split method; (e) transactional net margin method. Sub-section (2) of section 92C mandates that: `The most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (1) shall be applied, for determination of arm's length price, in the manner as may be prescribed’. On going through the prescription of sub-sections

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

price for the valuation of goodwill. Likewise, he further noted that the assessing authority has not examined the justification of the consideration for transfer of IPR and directed the Assessing Officer to re- examine the issue. 3.8 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 31.03.2006 by determining the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

Transfer Pricing order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was completed after the conclusion of the search, wherein the TPO proposed TP downward adjustment of Rs.407.25 crores on the imports from MIPP. The TPO did not propose any adjustment on the receipt of share capital reported in the Form 3CEB. The assessee had filed appeal against