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

1) of the notice and dealt the issue extensively. Thus, the question of no enquiry by the Assessing Office does not arise at all. In view of the above, we find that the ld. PCIT is not correct in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act to hold that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial

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

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

263 of the Act has submitted details about the sources for advancing Rs.43.26 crores and also for not collecting the interest on monies advanced to the tune of Rs.6,16,18,018, the fact remains that the impugned assessment order failed to examine the core issue on which the case was selected for scrutiny in the right perspective and passing

KRISHNAN SARAVANAN,ODDANCHATRAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, MADURAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1523/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Shri. Krishnan Saravanan, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 383/E-5D, Bye Pass Road, Income Tax-1, Oddanchatram 624 619. Madurai. [Pan: Asyps 5316H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Bharath Janarthanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri.S.R.Karuppusamy, Irs, Cit.

1 to section 263 of the Act’’. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trader in Butter and Ghee and filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14 on 18.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.9,60,840/- and agricultural income of Rs.79,000/-. The case was selected for complete scrutinyand scrutiny assessment order

M/S.MAHOGANY LOGISTICS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

1, Madurai under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company [earlier known as M/s. DRSR Logistics Services Private Limited] filed its return of income for the AY 2018-19 claiming loss of ₹.31,28,98,436/- under 2 I.T.A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

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

263 ITR 13 and that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs.vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) 267 CTR 305 39. We have considered the rival contentions

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

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

263 ITR 13 and that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs.vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) 267 CTR 305 39. We have considered the rival contentions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

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

263 ITR 13 and that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs.vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) 267 CTR 305 39. We have considered the rival contentions

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

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

263 ITR 13 and that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs.vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) 267 CTR 305 39. We have considered the rival contentions

GUARDIAN INDIA OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

1) of the Act 97 dated March 26, 2021 Submission dated April 03, 2021 filed 7 100 with the Ld. AO, in response to notice dated March 26, 2021 7.1. TDS return acknowledgement for 106 Form 240, 26Q, and 27Q for all the 4 Quarters (Annexure 2) Show Cause Notice ("SCN") under 118 section 263

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and setting aside the Assessment order. 2.1. The Learned Principal Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that there is no error in the order relating to the issues covered by the notice u/s 263. 2.2. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in holding that the assessing officer has failed to cause enquiry

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and setting aside the Assessment order. 2.1. The Learned Principal Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that there is no error in the order relating to the issues covered by the notice u/s 263. 2.2. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in holding that the assessing officer has failed to cause enquiry

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

TDS on each employee by treating it as perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act. 5. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in holding that the claim under section 36(1)(viia) is allowable on incremental advances only and not on outstanding advances. :-3-: ITA. No:1126/Chny/2024 5.1 Learned Principal Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that the issue has been

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

1) of the notice and dealt the issue extensively. Thus, the question of no enquiry by the Assessing Office does not arise at all. In view of the above, we find that the Id. PCIT is not correct in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act to hold that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-8(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

Section 263; the CIT should not only show that the AO's order is erroneous as a result of any of the situations enumerated above but CIT must also further show that as a result of an erroneous order, some loss is caused to the interest of the revenue. Their Lordship in the said judgment held that every loss

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-8(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

Section 263; the CIT should not only show that the AO's order is erroneous as a result of any of the situations enumerated above but CIT must also further show that as a result of an erroneous order, some loss is caused to the interest of the revenue. Their Lordship in the said judgment held that every loss

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS has to be deducted or not when the commission payment made to the overseas or not when the commission payment made to the overseas or not when the commission payment made to the overseas agents, the isuse is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the isuse is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the isuse

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

263 was unwarranted. (iv) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v DCIT - ITA No. 2560/PN/2012 dt. 03/02/20165 Summary: In the case of Indian insurer (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.) the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 62.67 crores under section 40(a)(i) in respect of reinsurance premium paid to NRRI. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal reversing