UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

37,85,000/- were debited, but, however, not added back as per\nRule 5(b)(ii) of First Schedule, is clear from computation of income from\nbusiness under normal provisions at page 42 of the assessment order.\nTherefore, it is clear that the assessee itself admitted that the provisions\ndebited to with reference to the above four accounts were

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

37,85,000/- were debited, but, however, not added back as per\nRule 5(b)(ii) of First Schedule, is clear from computation of income from\nbusiness under normal provisions at page 42 of the assessment order.\nTherefore, it is clear that the assessee itself admitted that the provisions\ndebited to with reference to the above four accounts were

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

37,85,000/- were debited, but, however, not added back as per\nRule 5(b)(ii) of First Schedule, is clear from computation of income from\nbusiness under normal provisions at page 42 of the assessment order.\nTherefore, it is clear that the assessee itself admitted that the provisions\ndebited to with reference to the above four accounts were

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(2), CHENNAI vs. S V GLOBAL MILL LTD, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2684/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Acit, M/S. Sv Global Mill Ltd., Corporate Circle 6(2), V. New No.5/1, Old No.3/1, 6Th Cross Street, Cit Colony, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aaocs2500E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Suresh Periasamy,Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2021

Section 10(37) of IT Act is not relevant to the assessee’s case, as the assessee has received interest under the new Land Acquisition Act. He further held that although Special Land Acquisition Officer had deducted TDS

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

37. In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed.” 6.3 Similar issue on identical fact was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Palanisamy Gounder Charitable Trust v. ITO (supra) for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, wherein the Tribunal has observed

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

37. In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed.” 6.3 Similar issue on identical fact was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Palanisamy Gounder Charitable Trust v. ITO (supra) for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, wherein the Tribunal has observed

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

37. In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed.” 6.3 Similar issue on identical fact was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Palanisamy Gounder Charitable Trust v. ITO (supra) for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, wherein the Tribunal has observed

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

37. In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed.” 6.3 Similar issue on identical fact was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Palanisamy Gounder Charitable Trust v. ITO (supra) for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, wherein the Tribunal has observed

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

37. In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed.” 6.3 Similar issue on identical fact was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Palanisamy Gounder Charitable Trust v. ITO (supra) for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, wherein the Tribunal has observed

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

37. In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed.” 6.3 Similar issue on identical fact was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Palanisamy Gounder Charitable Trust v. ITO (supra) for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, wherein the Tribunal has observed

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

37(1) of the Act as business expenditure and alternatively in terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as well. However, the assessee has not filed any evidence on record to show that the bank loan was utilized for the purpose of business for claiming as business expenses and thus, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

37(1) of the Act as business expenditure and alternatively in terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as well. However, the assessee has not filed any evidence on record to show that the bank loan was utilized for the purpose of business for claiming as business expenses and thus, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

37(1) of the Act as business expenditure and alternatively in terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as well. However, the assessee has not filed any evidence on record to show that the bank loan was utilized for the purpose of business for claiming as business expenses and thus, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

37(1) of the Act as business expenditure and alternatively in terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as well. However, the assessee has not filed any evidence on record to show that the bank loan was utilized for the purpose of business for claiming as business expenses and thus, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

37, Armenian Street, TDS Ward-1(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 001. Chennai. #थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/TAN AAACC-3120-C / CHEC-05921-G (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) : (+,थ* / Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Shrenik Chordia (CA)-Ld. AR +,थ* की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27-04-2023 घोषणा

M/S CIGFILLIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

37, Armenian Street, TDS Ward-1(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 001. Chennai. #थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/TAN AAACC-3120-C / CHEC-05921-G (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) : (+,थ* / Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Shrenik Chordia (CA)-Ld. AR +,थ* की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27-04-2023 घोषणा

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

37, Armenian Street, TDS Ward-1(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 001. Chennai. #थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/TAN AAACC-3120-C / CHEC-05921-G (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) : (+,थ* / Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Shrenik Chordia (CA)-Ld. AR +,थ* की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27-04-2023 घोषणा

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

37, Armenian Street, TDS Ward-1(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 001. Chennai. #थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/TAN AAACC-3120-C / CHEC-05921-G (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) : (+,थ* / Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Shrenik Chordia (CA)-Ld. AR +,थ* की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27-04-2023 घोषणा