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

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

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

Section 801A(8) of the Act. 4. The assessee in consequence to the Show Cause Notice had contended that the power purchase cost of TANGEDCO should not be the basis for comparison inasmuch the power purchase cost of the recipient which has to be seen and compared for the purpose of determining. Further, the assessee rebutted that it is erroneous

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose". 5.4 The Id.CIT(A) erred in not observing that the assessee purchased the first unit K-40 in the FY 2011-12 and this unit was previously owned and used by M//s.AmitronicsPvt Ltd, Bangalore and this machine was originally installed

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 121, Adarns Plaza, 60, Feet Road, Tiruppur - 641 602. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Prabhu Spining Mills Private Limited, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025 Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : आदेश /Order These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 (In Short “Id.Cit(A)”) Dated 04.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Taken As The Lead Appeal For Adjudication Of The Issues Involved. The Only Issue Which Has Been Raised In Appeal By The Revenue Is With Regard To Determination Of Quantum Of Deduction U/S.80-Ia Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act"). :-2-:

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

price at which TNEB supplies electricity to its end consumers and asserted thus that the transfer of electricity from the captive windmills to the textile division of the assessee company has been at arm’s length. However, the TPO carried out FAR analysis of the assessee & the TNEB, and rejected the Sri Shanmugavel Mills Pvt. Ltd :: 3 :: method

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

4 – Interdependence of LU1 and LU2 : The Id.AR submitted that LU2 operates as an independent unit and has entered into a separate lease agreement with Cheyyar SEZ Developers Private Limited (“SEZ Developer”) (Page 166 of paperbook) and obtained a separate Letter of Approval from the SEZ authorities. (Page 163 of paperbook). Further, the Id.AR also submitted that they have separate

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer pricing adjustment, the TPO noted from the audit report in Form No.3CEB that there is a claim of revenue expenditure on account of usage of brand name amounting to Rs. 45 Lakhs and payment of Rs. 155 Lakhs for purchase of brand name and capitalize the same in the books of accounts claiming depreciation. The TPO noted the facts

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer pricing adjustment, the TPO noted from the audit report in Form No.3CEB that there is a claim of revenue expenditure on account of usage of brand name amounting to Rs. 45 Lakhs and payment of Rs. 155 Lakhs for purchase of brand name and capitalize the same in the books of accounts claiming depreciation. The TPO noted the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

801A, it is prerequisite that the assessee has not formed the new business with machinery previously used. 2.5 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not observing that, as per Explanation 2 to subsection 3 of 80IA, if the total value of used plant, machinery in the new business is less than 20% then clause ii) of section 80IA(3) will

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

transfer pricing, since it does not have any bearing on profits, income, losses or assets of the assessee; 2.3. The CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have appreciated that, the corporate guarantees have been provided by the appellant as a stewardship /shareholder activity and not a business transaction that needs to be ITA Nos.1402 & 1663/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) M/s. Ashok Leyland

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

transferred to TNEB after stipulated period. The TNEB had the exclusive rights over the berth in Ennore Port for importing coal, the appellant had to enter into an agreement for coal handling with the TNEB itself. Thus the appellant satisfies the requirements in the entirety for claiming the deduction u/s 801A (4) of the IT Act. The appellant further placed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

transferred to TNEB after stipulated period. The TNEB had the exclusive rights over the berth in Ennore Port for importing coal, the appellant had to enter into an agreement for coal handling with the TNEB itself. Thus the appellant satisfies the requirements in the entirety for claiming the deduction u/s 801A (4) of the IT Act. The appellant further placed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

transferred to TNEB after stipulated period. The TNEB had the exclusive rights over the berth in Ennore Port for importing coal, the appellant had to enter into an agreement for coal handling with the TNEB itself. Thus the appellant satisfies the requirements in the entirety for claiming the deduction u/s 801A (4) of the IT Act. The appellant further placed