Malayala Manorama Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 69)

EASYACCESS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COPR WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 587/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 587/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, New No.18, Old No.40, Vs. Corporate Ward 2(1), Mussuri Subramaniam Salai, Chennai. (Oliver Road), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aabce 4646G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Lavanya, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060282095(1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.09.2017. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Ao For Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act, As The Ao During The Original Assessment Proceedings Has Formed An Opinion After Seeking Explanation & After Examining The Present Issue Of Factoring Of Income U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Hence, Now Reopening Is Bad In Law. The Assessee Also Raised The Interconnected Issue, Which Is On Merits That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Beig Factoring Income In The Hands Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Ms. M. Lavanya, FCA &For Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…g the previous year. Mere fact that indirectly assessee earned goodwill of the general public does not imply that the expenditure was incurred for business purposes and such expenditure is not deductible u/s 37 as held in Malayala Manorama Co.Ltd. Vs CIT(Ker) 284 ITR 69 and Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. vs CIT (P&H) 226 Taxman 364. While such philanthropic activity are laudable, it perse cannot constitute deductible business expenditure and assessee has to prove the corresponding expediency in making out such donations as held in CIT Vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (Del) 352 ITR 88 and CIT & Anr Vs Wipro Ltd. (Kar) 3…

REGAN POWERTECH PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 570/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.476/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.570/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, Cit Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 16.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, CIT

Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of assessee as envisaged in section 37(1) of the Act 2.6 The ld CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Malayala Manorama Ltd Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 69 and decision of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of MRF Ltd Vs DCIT 2011-TIOL-250-ITAT-MAD. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 2. The first effective ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue relates…

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE 5 (1), , CHENNAI vs. REGEN POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 476/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.476/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.570/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, Cit Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 16.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, CIT

Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of assessee as envisaged in section 37(1) of the Act 2.6 The ld CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Malayala Manorama Ltd Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 69 and decision of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of MRF Ltd Vs DCIT 2011-TIOL-250-ITAT-MAD. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 2. The first effective ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue relates…

M/S. FNF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1565/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 135Section 135(5)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…ory to comply with the provisions of Law. Further paying such a sum, the assessee was complying the obligation cast on it by the Companies Act, 2013. 6. As far as the assessee’s reliance upon the decision in the case of Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. v CIT [2006] 284 ITR 69 in support of its claim is concerned, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the said decision was on entirely different issue as the expenditure was incurred voluntarily Page 4 of 10 and as such the same was a donation. The issue of CSR expenditure was not there. The reliance of the assessee on Circular No 01/2016 dt 1.2.01.2016 issued by the Min…

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

ITA 380/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P C ParwalFor Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…h Court in case of RSWM 272 ITR 487, Hindustan Zinc Limited in 322 ITR 478 and various other High Courts in Para 14 of the order, allowed the claim of the assessee. 3.7 It was further submitted that the cases relied by the AO are distinguishable on facts. In 284 ITR 69, the donation given to a charitable trust for rehabilitation of earthquake victims was held as not incurred for the Rajasthan State Industries Development & Investment Corp. Ltd. purpose of the business. Similarly, expenditure incurred for running training camps for budding cricketers was held as not incurred for the purpose of business in 2011-T…

DEV LAND AND HOUSING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4084/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

…elecast / Radio broadcast. Thus, there cannot be any advertisement value attributable to such sponsorship. Therefore, the ratio of this decision is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Reliance Is placed on the case of Malyala Manorama Co. Ltd V/s CIT (284 ITR 69 Ker), where it has been held that if the assessee makes contribution of a certain sum to a Trust, but, claims it as deduction u/s 37(1), the same is not correct. This contribution is not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of 9 ITA No.4084/Mum/2015. M/s.Dev Land and Housing Pvt.Ltd. business or profession. The mere fact that indirectly the asse…

Malayala Manorama Ltd. v. CIT