INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,LTU(2), CHENNAI

Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.661/Chny/2019, 202 & 203/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-2018) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Ltu (2) Chennai. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.914/Chny/2019, 253 & 254/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17&2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Ltu (2) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024

IV) Depreciation on assets taken over from Bank of Tamilnadu: This ground has been allowed in favour of assessee by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.948 & 777 /Chny/2018 for AY 2014-15 which held as under: 27. On the issue of depreciation on assets taken over by Bank of Tamilnadu

COONOOR COOPERATIVE URBANK BANK LIMITED,COONOOR vs. DCIT,, OOTY

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.228/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Coonoor Co-Operative Urban Bank Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.15, Mount Road, Circle I, Coonoor. Ooty. [Pan: Aaaac 0793M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Miss N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

TDS at applicable rate. (iv) Disallowance of Rs.48,76,149/- being contribution unrecognized staff provident fund by employee. (v) Disallowance u/s.40 (a)(ia) of Rs.4,82,97,933/- interest paid on various deposits for want of Tax Deduction at source on ground of applicability of Section 194A (1)’’. 3

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

194A of the IT Act treating it as Interest. The AO taxed proportionate Interest of Rs.3,33,00,000/- as Income of the appellant. 5.3.1 The appellant submitted that the Intention was to derive value of a large project and M/S Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. decided not to sell land to it and compensated it. It was submitted that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

194A of the IT Act treating it as Interest. The AO taxed proportionate Interest of Rs.3,33,00,000/- as Income of the appellant. 5.3.1 The appellant submitted that the Intention was to derive value of a large project and M/S Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. decided not to sell land to it and compensated it. It was submitted that

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

194A of the IT Act treating it as Interest. The AO taxed proportionate Interest of Rs.3,33,00,000/- as Income of the appellant. 5.3.1 The appellant submitted that the Intention was to derive value of a large project and M/S Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. decided not to sell land to it and compensated it. It was submitted that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

194A of the IT Act treating it as Interest. The AO taxed proportionate Interest of Rs.3,33,00,000/- as Income of the appellant. 5.3.1 The appellant submitted that the Intention was to derive value of a large project and M/S Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. decided not to sell land to it and compensated it. It was submitted that

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-2, CHENNAI

IV) Depreciation on assets taken over from Bank of Tamilnadu:\nThis ground has been allowed in favour of assessee by the co-ordinate bench of the\nTribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos.948 & 777 /Chny/2018 for AY 2014-15\nwhich held as under:\n27. On the issue of depreciation on assets taken over by Bank of\nTamilnadu

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,LTU(2), CHENNAI

IV) Depreciation on assets taken over from Bank of Tamilnadu:\nThis ground has been allowed in favour of assessee by the co-ordinate bench of the\nTribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos.948 & 777 /Chny/2018 for AY 2014-15\nwhich held as under:\n27. On the issue of depreciation on assets taken over by Bank of\nTamilnadu

ACIT LTU-2, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

IV) Depreciation on assets taken over from Bank of Tamilnadu:\nThis ground has been allowed in favour of assessee by the co-ordinate bench of the\nTribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos.948 & 777 /Chny/2018 for AY 2014-15\nwhich held as under:\n27. On the issue of depreciation on assets taken over by Bank of\nTamilnadu

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRLE-8, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

IV) Depreciation on assets taken over from Bank of Tamilnadu:\nThis ground has been allowed in favour of assessee by the co-ordinate bench of the\nTribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos.948 & 777 /Chny/2018 for AY 2014-15\nwhich held as under:\n27. On the issue of depreciation on assets taken over by Bank of\nTamilnadu

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRLE-8, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

IV) Depreciation on assets taken over from Bank of Tamilnadu:\nThis ground has been allowed in favour of assessee by the co-ordinate bench of the\nTribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos.948 & 777 /Chny/2018 for AY 2014-15\nwhich held as under:\n27. On the issue of depreciation on assets taken over by Bank of\nTamilnadu

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM vs. GOVINDA RAJULU SRINIVASAN, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

iv) Disallowance of JCB expenses - Rs.3,01,000 (v) Disallowance of legal expenses - Rs.22,00,000 (vi) Disallowance of advertisement exp - Rs.87,280 (vii) Disallowance of compensation exp - Rs.4,00,000 (viii) Disallowance of audit fees u/s 40(a)(ia) - Rs.60,000 (ix)Disallowance of marketing exp - Rs.4,19,052 (x)Disallowance of travelling expenses - Rs.36,99,567 (xi) Disallowance

KHAZANA JEWLLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the results, orders of the lower authorities for all the 20

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 & 1833/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-2014. M/S. Khazana Jewellery Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, No.252-A, T.T.K. Road, Tds Circle I, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaack 2564Q ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS on such incentives or what was termed by the assessee as discount, are 194A and 2(28A) of the Act. Both these Sections are reproduced hereunder:- Section 194A of the Act :- (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than

KHAZANA JEWLLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the results, orders of the lower authorities for all the 20

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 & 1833/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-2014. M/S. Khazana Jewellery Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, No.252-A, T.T.K. Road, Tds Circle I, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaack 2564Q ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS on such incentives or what was termed by the assessee as discount, are 194A and 2(28A) of the Act. Both these Sections are reproduced hereunder:- Section 194A of the Act :- (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than

KHAZANA JEWLLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the results, orders of the lower authorities for all the 20

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 & 1833/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-2014. M/S. Khazana Jewellery Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, No.252-A, T.T.K. Road, Tds Circle I, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaack 2564Q ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS on such incentives or what was termed by the assessee as discount, are 194A and 2(28A) of the Act. Both these Sections are reproduced hereunder:- Section 194A of the Act :- (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than

KHAZANA JEWLLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the results, orders of the lower authorities for all the 20

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 & 1833/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-2014. M/S. Khazana Jewellery Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, No.252-A, T.T.K. Road, Tds Circle I, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaack 2564Q ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS on such incentives or what was termed by the assessee as discount, are 194A and 2(28A) of the Act. Both these Sections are reproduced hereunder:- Section 194A of the Act :- (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than

MALINI,THIRUNINDRAVUR vs. ACIT, NCC-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.:2362/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Malini, The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Ganapathy Puram, Near Vs. Income Tax, Ragvendra Nagar, Periyapalayam Non Corporate Circle 22(1), (Tbm), Road, Thiruninravur 602 024, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ajspm-9167-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 25.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 17 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find That The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Are Bonafide & Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

iv) and section 145A(b) of the Act. So far as addition made towards unsecured loan is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee, on that the Revenue has not preferred any appeal before the ITAT. 6. On being aggrieved against confirmation of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CLARION WIND FARM P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

IV Floor, Sigapi Achi Chennai-600 034. Building, 18/03, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. [PAN: AADCC 4348 P] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.Supriyo Pal, JCIT : Mr.R.Sivaraman, Adv. /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent by : 17.03.2017 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date of Hearing : घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 30.05.2017 आदेश