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.

section 143(3) of the Act, since no adjudication and in the impugned order. Thus, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues relating to addition made towards disallowance of PF, Bonus and interest on cash credit, on merits, by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the ground Nos. 13 to 20 raised

SHI vs. U CANADIAN CLEAR WATERS LTD.,CHENNAIVS.DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2347/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

143(2) of the Act and thereafter issued notice under Section 148 of the Act for processing the reassessment. Even in that case, according to the Ld. counsel, the High Court found that reopening of assessment is invalid. According to the Ld. counsel, in view of the judgement of Madras High Court in Tanmac India (supra), the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

143(2), dated 26.08.2019 under section 142(1) and notice dated 19.12.2019 under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein, the Assessing Officer specifically sought information about the claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the Act vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons recorded

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

143(2), dated 26.08.2019 under section 142(1)\nand notice dated 19.12.2019 under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein, the\nAssessing Officer specifically sought information about the claim of\nexemption under section 10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded

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

143(2), dated 26.08.2019 under section 142(1)\nand notice dated 19.12.2019 under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein, the\nAssessing Officer specifically sought information about the claim of\nexemption under section 10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, TRICHY vs. M/S. RAJA TRANSPORTS,, ARIYALUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.722/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Raja Transports, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), No. 34, Trichy Main Road, No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Ariyalur 621 704. Trichy 620 001. [Pan:Aaefr4385H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.619/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/S. Raja Transports, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ariyalur 621 704. Trichy 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &’ : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 19.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2

TDS. Hence, as per section 194C of the Act, 30% of ₹.14,78,95,505/- i.e., ₹.4,43,68,652/- was disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section 143

M/S. RAJA TRANSPORTS,,ARIYALUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.722/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Raja Transports, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), No. 34, Trichy Main Road, No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Ariyalur 621 704. Trichy 620 001. [Pan:Aaefr4385H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.619/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/S. Raja Transports, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ariyalur 621 704. Trichy 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &’ : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 19.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2

TDS. Hence, as per section 194C of the Act, 30% of ₹.14,78,95,505/- i.e., ₹.4,43,68,652/- was disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section 143

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

143(2), dated 26.08.2019 under section 142(1)\nand notice dated 19.12.2019 under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein, the\nAssessing Officer specifically sought information about the claim of\nexemption under section 10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded

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

143(2), dated 26.08.2019 under section 142(1)\nand notice dated 19.12.2019 under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein, the\nAssessing Officer specifically sought information about the claim of\nexemption under section 10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded

DCIT,CC-2(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S, JAN DE NUL DREDGING (I)(P)LTD, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.870/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Jan De Nul Dredging (I)(P) Ltd., “Capital”, 10Th Floor, No. 554/555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Mount Road, Chennai 600 018. Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacj6482G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. & Ms. C. Sowndarya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 26.08.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Dredging Services & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 30.11.2011 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.3,86,20,850/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Processed Under Section 143(1)

TDS compliance, it means, the details are already filed before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer, by considering the same, the assessment order was 7 I.T.A. No. 870/Chny/20 passed under section 143

SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

143(1)(a)(ii) specifies the incorrect claim particularly if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return of income and that can be any information as such as the audit report or some other information as provided by assessee in the return of income. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that earlier only prima

FAURECIA EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1) CHE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1223/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2023-24 Faurecia Emissions Control Assistant Commissioner Of Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.634, Karumuthu Center, Corporate Circle-1(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai-600 035 [Pan: Aaaca8450F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Siddhesh Chaugula, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

143(1)(a) was not issued prior to making of the adjustment. 4.0 The Ld.DR vehemently argued in favour of the order of lower authorities. It was stated that higher receipts were appearing in Form- 26AS of the assessee as against those disclosed by the assessee in its Return of Income. The Ld.DR had argued that as per law TDS

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

TDS / TCS 467 18. - Details of acquisition and use of assets 479 19. - Certificate for grant of expenses under Section 481 35(2AB) of the Act 20. 05.03.2022 Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act 485 21. 20.03.2022 Reply to the Notice under Section dated 488 05.03.2022 22. - Details of creditors 491 23. - Legal notices issued by parties

MAHAVEER BABULAL JAIN ,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -5, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. No. 2274/Chny/2017 for AY 2008-09 is dismissed and I

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

TDS on the application of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 2 I.T.A. Nos.2274 & 2275/Chny/17 the assessee also challenged confirmation of disallowance towards loss on account of mutilated notes claimed as expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act for both the assessment years. 2. It was the submissions of the ld. Counsel that the assessee is engaged

MAHAVEER BABULAL JAIN ,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -5, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. No. 2274/Chny/2017 for AY 2008-09 is dismissed and I

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

TDS on the application of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 2 I.T.A. Nos.2274 & 2275/Chny/17 the assessee also challenged confirmation of disallowance towards loss on account of mutilated notes claimed as expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act for both the assessment years. 2. It was the submissions of the ld. Counsel that the assessee is engaged

M/S. CASTLEWICK FZE,DUBAI vs. ACIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

143(2) /\n142(1) of the Act, assessee submitted that there is no specific clause\nrelating to Fees for Technical Services (FTS) in the India-UAE DTAA.\nIt was submitted once the income chargeable to tax as per the DTAA\nare characterized by excluding the FTS, then scope of taxing the said\nincome as FTS cannot be expanding by importing

SMT, RAMU ANNAMALAI UMAIYAL RADHAI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Smt. Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. Iii, 3Rd Floor, Poojapura Vs. Income Tax- Chennai I, Apartments, St. Mary’S Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aakpu6790M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai - I, Chennai, Dated 20.05.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

143(3) of the Act and the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. I, therefore, submit that the proposal for revision of the order under section 263 of the Act may kindly be dropped.” 6.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, against the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee

JAGANNATHAN BASKAR,HOSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , HOSUR

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2629/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Jagannathan Baskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H88, New Astc Hudco, Ward -1, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Hosur Hosur 635 109. [Pan: Adqpb 9089F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

TDS Credit over the tax payable on returned income. The Ld. Assessing Officer sent Communication of Proposed adjustments under Section 143

VAIDYANATHAN KALAIVANI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

TDS deducted as refund. The Assessing Officer accepted the return. However, the PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, holding that the compensation was taxable as 'income from other sources' under Section 56(2)(xi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and directed the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's original assessment