SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.173/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shriram Finance Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Shriram Transport Income Tax, Finance Company Limited), Corporate Circle 3(1), Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Chennai. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that there is no decision of jurisdictional High Court available on the issue of initiation of regular assessment by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, also does not preclude from passing of the order u/s 143(1) of the Act, therefore, he heavily relied on the findings

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Hyundai Motor India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park Income Tax, Irrungattukottai, 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Sriperumbudur Taluk, Ring Road, Kancheepuram District, Anna Nagar Western Tamil Nadu-602117 Extension, Chennai-600101 [Pan: Aaach2364M] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

TDS, the learned :- 4 -: DRP directed AO to verify details and allow credit as per law, vide its directions dated 28.12.2015 passed u/s 144C(5) of the 1961 Act. The AO while passing assessment order dated 28.01.2016 u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the 1961 Act, levied interest on ‘assessed income’ instead of ‘returned income’. We have

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

Section 2(14) of the Act, and accordingly no liability to capital gains tax arose on such transfer. The AO, however, did not accept the assessee’s contention. According to the AO that the impugned land constituted a "capital asset" within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, was liable to capital gains taxation. On that basis, the AO computed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

108/-. 12.1 The ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed stay petition before Assessing Officer as such interest u/s.220(2) of the Act cannot be charged. 12.2. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 12.3 We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

108/-. 12.1 The ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed stay petition before Assessing Officer as such interest u/s.220(2) of the Act cannot be charged. 12.2. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 12.3 We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

108/-. 12.1 The ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed stay petition before Assessing Officer as such interest u/s.220(2) of the Act cannot be charged. 12.2. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 12.3 We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. HARIWAY LINES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

TDS. At any given time, the appellant executes\nprojects across hundred(s) of locations across the state of Tamilnadu\nwith the assistance of local labour at each site.\n6.2.18 In support of the appellant's position, Shri. M. Pandithurai, the\nManaging Director of the appellant company, clarified in his sworn\nstatement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2.4, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. RISHI ENTERPRISES, PUDUKKOTTAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

TDS. At any given time, the appellant executes\nprojects across hundred(s) of locations across the state of Tamilnadu\nwith the assistance of local labour at each site.\n6.2.18 In support of the appellant's position, Shri. M. Pandithurai, the\nManaging Director of the appellant company, clarified in his sworn\nstatement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during

ITO, COIMBATORE vs. INDO SHELL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

108 ITR 345, Section 2(22) (e) of the Act stood attracted on loans taken by a shareholder from a controlled company, to the extent such company possessed accumulated profits. Aggregate amount of "35,82,27,603/- received by the assessee from ISML during the period 19.01.2012 to 31.03.2012 was considered as deemed dividend in assessee’s hand and assessment

INDOSHELL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

108 ITR 345, Section 2(22) (e) of the Act stood attracted on loans taken by a shareholder from a controlled company, to the extent such company possessed accumulated profits. Aggregate amount of "35,82,27,603/- received by the assessee from ISML during the period 19.01.2012 to 31.03.2012 was considered as deemed dividend in assessee’s hand and assessment

MATRIMONY.COM LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. IOT CORPORATE WARD 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

10 17. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO noticed from the financials of the assessee that the assessee admitted prior period income of Rs.7,01,42,914/- but has not included in the computation of income. Hence, the AO noted that the assessee’s revenue

MATRIMONY.COM LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

10 17. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO noticed from the financials of the assessee that the assessee admitted prior period income of Rs.7,01,42,914/- but has not included in the computation of income. Hence, the AO noted that the assessee’s revenue

MATRIMONY.COM LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

10 17. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO noticed from the financials of the assessee that the assessee admitted prior period income of Rs.7,01,42,914/- but has not included in the computation of income. Hence, the AO noted that the assessee’s revenue

MATRIMONY.COM LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

10 17. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO noticed from the financials of the assessee that the assessee admitted prior period income of Rs.7,01,42,914/- but has not included in the computation of income. Hence, the AO noted that the assessee’s revenue

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 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) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

10 of the Assessment order that the FMV prevailing for the schedule property was steeply increased from Rs.1200/- per sq.ft prevailing upto 31.03.2012 to Rs.5500/- per sq.ft from 01.04.2012. g. The appellant adopted the date of transfer as on 30.01.2012 i.e., the date of execution of MOA and the guideline value fixed at Rs.1200/- per sq.ft for the period upto