Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

225 ITR 802Supreme Court of India1997#111 most cited

What is Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure that provides an enduring benefit should be amortized over its useful life, not allowed as a deduction in a single year, to prevent a distorted picture of profits. Specifically, premium paid on debentures for their issue should be amortized on a straight-line method over the life of the debentures.

568

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · 225 ITR 802 · SC · enduring benefit · amortisation · section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · premium on debentures · straight line method · matching principle

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 153ASection 147Section 153CSection 132Section 14ASection 263
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

enduring benefitsection 32(1)revenue expenditureintangible assetssection 32capital expendituresection 35commercial expediencysection 30book profitsamalgamationmercantile system of accounting

Judgments citing Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Chennai vs. Hsi Automotive Limited, Kancheepuram

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

ITA 1123/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.1123/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Hsi Automotive Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. Survey No. 73, ‘A’ Block, 100, Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Thandalam (Po), Mevalurkuppam, Wanaparthy Block, 121, M.G. Road, Sriperumbudur, Chennai 600 034. Kancheepuram, 602 105. [Pan:Aaach2804E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. Chandrasekaran, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised Three Grounds In Its Appeal Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made On Account Of Scientific Expenses Claimed Under Section 35(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Excluding The Investments Made By The Assessee In Its Subsidiary

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri H. Chandrasekaran, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)

…t the assessee has not claimed any exempt income out of the investments made. In the case of Redington (India) Ltd v. Addl. CIT (supra), by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 225 ITR 802, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed that where there was no exempt income, there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure in relation to such assumed income and accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made in this case. The 7 I.T.A. No.1123/M/17 above order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court was not reversed or…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eveready Industries India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

…held that since in the past assessments the assessee’s claim for pro-rata deduction was consistently allowed and assessee's such claim was in conformity with the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited Vs CIT (225 ITR 802), the deduction for Rs 406.78 lacs was held permissible. Factually, assessee's case in AY 2006- 07 continued to remain same, the AO is directed to allow the deduction for Rs.406.78 lacs in computing assessee’s total income for AY 2006-07. Additional Ground of appeal is accordingly allowed.” Aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us. 7 Eveready…

Ask Property Investment Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1810/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 143(3)

…nasmuch as not only the liability had arisen in the assessment year in question, it was even quantified and discharged as well in that very accounting year. 15. Judgment in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 4 SCC 666 was cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue to justify the decision taken by the courts below. We find that the Court categorically held even in that case that the general principle is that ordinarily revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is to be allowed in the year in which it is incurred. However, s…

M/S. Repco Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2733/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari]

For Appellant: Mr.M.Viswanathan, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr.S.Sundaresan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2732 & 2733/Mds./2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years: 2009-10 & 2012-13 M/s.REPCO Home Finance Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Alexandar Square, Income Tax, No.2(Old No.34/35), Company range-5, Sardar Patel road, Gunidy, Chennai -600 034. Chennai 600 032. [PAN AACCR 0209 F ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

M/S. Repco Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2732/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari]

For Appellant: Mr.M.Viswanathan, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr.S.Sundaresan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2732 & 2733/Mds./2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years: 2009-10 & 2012-13 M/s.REPCO Home Finance Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Alexandar Square, Income Tax, No.2(Old No.34/35), Company range-5, Sardar Patel road, Gunidy, Chennai -600 034. Chennai 600 032. [PAN AACCR 0209 F ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

DCIT, Tuticorin vs. T.Johnson, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 969/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.969/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. T. Johnson, Income Tax, 106, J/66, Church Street, Circle -1, Millerpuram, Tuticorin. Tuticorin 628 001. [Pan Abppj 9831J ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sarojkumar Pariada, Adv
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…n the same previous year. Thus, by application of the matching concept, in a year where there is no exempt income :- 3 -: there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure in relation to such assumed income. (Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (225 ITR 802)). The language of Sec. 14A(10 should be read in that context and such that it advances the scheme f the Act rather than distort it’’. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 6. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 6…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…the name ‘premium’ is also allowable as business expenditure. With this, in view, premium payable on the bonds, the assessee can claim premium payable on a pro rata basis as held by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (225 ITR 802). Accordingly, the assessee claimed the said premium payable of ₹ 12.09 crores as 40 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 expenditure in the computation of income liable for assessment for the asst. year under consideration. However, the AO observed that the premium payable of ₹ 12.09 crores claimed as a deductible expenditure by the assessee i…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…the name ‘premium’ is also allowable as business expenditure. With this, in view, premium payable on the bonds, the assessee can claim premium payable on a pro rata basis as held by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (225 ITR 802). Accordingly, the assessee claimed the said premium payable of ₹ 12.09 crores as 40 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 expenditure in the computation of income liable for assessment for the asst. year under consideration. However, the AO observed that the premium payable of ₹ 12.09 crores claimed as a deductible expenditure by the assessee i…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…the name ‘premium’ is also allowable as business expenditure. With this, in view, premium payable on the bonds, the assessee can claim premium payable on a pro rata basis as held by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (225 ITR 802). Accordingly, the assessee claimed the said premium payable of ₹ 12.09 crores as 40 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 expenditure in the computation of income liable for assessment for the asst. year under consideration. However, the AO observed that the premium payable of ₹ 12.09 crores claimed as a deductible expenditure by the assessee i…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Nms Works Software Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2902/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2902/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Nms Works Software Pvt. Ltd., C-3, 6Th Floor, Iit Madras Research Income Tax, Vs. Corporate Circle 4(2), Park, Taramani, Chennai 600 113. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcn2551M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Murali Mohan, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Naufal Mukkthar, Advocate [Vakalat/Poa Not Filed] सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Of The Department Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 08.08.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised Two Effective Grounds Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of ₹.24,23,035/- Amortized In Books In Respect Of Software Products & (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance On The Claim On Interest On Delayed Payment On Service Tax Of ₹.8,48,216/-.

For Appellant: Shri Murali Mohan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri J. Naufal Mukkthar, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…submitted that the amortization of expenditure is not recognized under the Income Tax Act. By referring to the grounds of appeal, he further submits that the ld. CIT(A) failed to follow the decision in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. 225 ITR 802 (SC), wherein, it was held that although the amount of lease premium paid in respect of such agreement should be amortized over the period of lease and only the amount pertaining to the relevant previous year should be allowed as deduction. He also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the decision in the case of Gail India Ltd. v.…

Padmavati Properties & Trust Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-11(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 612/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(i)

…1 Padmavati Properties & Trust Pvt. Ltd.,AY 2004-05 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/and "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] आयकर अपील सं"या / I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2014 "नधॉरण वषॅ/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Padmavati Properties & Trust Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-11(3), Kolkata (PAN: AACCA1180C) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Date of Hearing 23.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement 27.07.2017 Shri D. S. Damle, AR For the Appellant/ अपीलाथ" N o n e For…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 419/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 383 & 384/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Trimex Sands Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No.1, Subbaraya Avenue, v. Income-tax, CP Ramaswamy Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. PAN AABCE3846Q (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 418 & 419/M…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 418/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 383 & 384/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Trimex Sands Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No.1, Subbaraya Avenue, v. Income-tax, CP Ramaswamy Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. PAN AABCE3846Q (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 418 & 419/M…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 384/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 383 & 384/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Trimex Sands Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No.1, Subbaraya Avenue, v. Income-tax, CP Ramaswamy Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. PAN AABCE3846Q (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 418 & 419/M…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 383/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 383 & 384/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Trimex Sands Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No.1, Subbaraya Avenue, v. Income-tax, CP Ramaswamy Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. PAN AABCE3846Q (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 418 & 419/M…

M/S. Florind Shoes P. Ltd., Chennai vs. The Addl. CIT, Chennai

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

ITA 55/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.55/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Florind Shoes P. Ltd., The Additional Commissioner Of 29, College Road, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 006. Company Circle Ii(1), [Pan: Aaacf0490J] Chennai (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai Dated 29.11.2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Notional Disallowance Expenses Amounting To ₹.90,74,583/- Made Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “बी” "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.55/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/s. Florind Shoes P. Ltd., The Additional Commissioner of 29, College Road, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 006. Company Circle II(1), [PAN: AAACF0490J] Chennai (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Sh…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Alagumalai Impex P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 721/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 2911 and 214/Mds/2014 Assessment Years:2007-08 and 2008-09 M/s. Alagumalai Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No. 95, New Avadi Road, Income Tax, Company Circle I(1), Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AADCA6590R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) I.T.A. No. 721/Mds/2014 Assessment Year:2008-09 The Deputy Commissione…

Alagumalai Impex Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 2911/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 2911 and 214/Mds/2014 Assessment Years:2007-08 and 2008-09 M/s. Alagumalai Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No. 95, New Avadi Road, Income Tax, Company Circle I(1), Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AADCA6590R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) I.T.A. No. 721/Mds/2014 Assessment Year:2008-09 The Deputy Commissione…

M/S. Alagumalai Impex Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 214/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 2911 and 214/Mds/2014 Assessment Years:2007-08 and 2008-09 M/s. Alagumalai Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No. 95, New Avadi Road, Income Tax, Company Circle I(1), Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AADCA6590R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) I.T.A. No. 721/Mds/2014 Assessment Year:2008-09 The Deputy Commissione…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sunder Chemicals Private Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 107/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.107/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Sundar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(2), Vs. 6G, 560-562, Century Plaza, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, Anna Salai, Teynampet, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aabcs5173Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Nagendra Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkatanarayanan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 25.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P. Nagendra Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkatanarayanan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.107/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Sundar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(2), Vs. 6G, 560-562, Century Plaza, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7th Floor, Anna Salai, Teynampet, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 018. [PAN:AABCS5173Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)…