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

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

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

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

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

801A of the Act\n“(8) Where any goods or services held for the purposes of the eligible\nbusiness are transferred to any other business carried on by the\nassessee, or where any goods or services held for the purposes of any\nother business carried on by the assessee are transferred to the eligible\nbusiness and, in either case

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

801A of the Act\n“(8) Where any goods or services held for the purposes of the eligible\nbusiness are transferred to any other business carried on by the\nassessee, or where any goods or services held for the purposes of any\nother business carried on by the assessee are transferred to the eligible\nbusiness and, in either case

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

7. The DRP deleted the corporate guarantee determined by the TPO as ALP and making upward adjustment accordingly. The DRP deleted by observing as under: “3.5.3. The issue of determining the ALP on corporate guarantee has already been examined by the jurisdictional bench of Chennai ITAT in the case of Redington India Ltd. v. JCIT (ITA No.513/ Mds/2014). The Honble

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

7. The DRP deleted the corporate guarantee determined by the TPO as ALP and making upward adjustment accordingly. The DRP deleted by observing as under: “3.5.3. The issue of determining the ALP on corporate guarantee has already been examined by the jurisdictional bench of Chennai ITAT in the case of Redington India Ltd. v. JCIT (ITA No.513/ Mds/2014). The Honble