VIRUDHUNAGAR CENTRAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Shri Abraham P. George & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-2014. The Virudhunagar District Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tds Ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [Pan Aaaau 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [PAN AAAAU 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. C. Maruthappan, C.A. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 08-10-2018 : 09-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

56(2)(vii) of the Act r.w.s 2(24)(xv) of the Act. The said addition stands deleted. ITA Nos.406 & 407/Mds/2017 :- 34 -: The only other issue raised by the assessee which is common 29. for both the years is on disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. Limited arguments of the ld. Authorised Representative was 30. that while computing such disallowance

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

56(2)(vii) of the Act r.w.s 2(24)(xv) of the Act. The said addition stands deleted. ITA Nos.406 & 407/Mds/2017 :- 34 -: The only other issue raised by the assessee which is common 29. for both the years is on disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. Limited arguments of the ld. Authorised Representative was 30. that while computing such disallowance

M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,767/- per share.\n3) The CIT(A) / NFAC erred in estimating the Fair market value\nof shares at 837.24 per shares instead of Rs.1,777/- as submitted by the\nAppellant.\n4) The CIT(A) /NFAC should have appreciated that, even under\n11UA, what is being valued is the conglomeration of assets which\ntogether form a thriving running hotel business

JCIT, COIMBATORE vs. CHROMA PRINT INDIA PVT . LTD., COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.2083/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Chroma Print India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Tds Range, Vs. P.B. No. 5316, 53, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore. G.N. Mills Post, Mtp Road, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccc6021A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Veni Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal: “1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That No Penalty Is Leviable On The Non Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Labour Charges Worth

56,180/- and moreover, towards interest payment of ₹.18,27,500/-, non deduction of tax was ₹.11,69,750/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act holding that the assessee “as an assessee in default”. Accordingly, the JCIT initiated proceedings under section 271C of the Act by issuing show cause notice

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. N RAMASAMY, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.127 & 128/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. N. Ramasamy, Income Tax, No.14/19, Saraswathi Street, Central Circle 2(2), Mahaingapuram, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Adupr 8003P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023. घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

section 2(14) of the Act. Independent of the finding, it is a foregone conclusion at present, that Smt. Radha Narayanan had the creditworthiness to provide such a sum to her son being the appellant. Therefore, treating the receipt of Rs.1,74,00,000/- as unexplained is not backed by proper reasons and hence the corresponding addition is deleted’’. Aggrieved

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. N RAMASAMY, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.127 & 128/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. N. Ramasamy, Income Tax, No.14/19, Saraswathi Street, Central Circle 2(2), Mahaingapuram, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Adupr 8003P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023. घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

section 2(14) of the Act. Independent of the finding, it is a foregone conclusion at present, that Smt. Radha Narayanan had the creditworthiness to provide such a sum to her son being the appellant. Therefore, treating the receipt of Rs.1,74,00,000/- as unexplained is not backed by proper reasons and hence the corresponding addition is deleted’’. Aggrieved

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]

Section 11(1) ( c) of the Act. The findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the land development expenditure as appearing at para 13.1.2 of his order is reproduced hereunder:- 13.1.2 I have gone through the elaborate discussions by the Assessing Officer to arrive at his conclusions extracted above and also the explanations and ITA Nos2125

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]

Section 11(1) ( c) of the Act. The findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the land development expenditure as appearing at para 13.1.2 of his order is reproduced hereunder:- 13.1.2 I have gone through the elaborate discussions by the Assessing Officer to arrive at his conclusions extracted above and also the explanations and ITA Nos2125

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]

Section 11(1) ( c) of the Act. The findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the land development expenditure as appearing at para 13.1.2 of his order is reproduced hereunder:- 13.1.2 I have gone through the elaborate discussions by the Assessing Officer to arrive at his conclusions extracted above and also the explanations and ITA Nos2125

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]

Section 11(1) ( c) of the Act. The findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the land development expenditure as appearing at para 13.1.2 of his order is reproduced hereunder:- 13.1.2 I have gone through the elaborate discussions by the Assessing Officer to arrive at his conclusions extracted above and also the explanations and ITA Nos2125

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case for AY 2018-19. The ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case for AY 2018-19. The ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case for AY 2018-19. The ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision

SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly.\n15. In result, appeal of both the assessees in ITA No. 1172 & 1173/Chny/2025\nare allowed and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

TDS.\nThe assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A).\n5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is\nretrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case for AY\n2018-19. The ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

1)(vii) on stand alone basis. 44. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of AO and the ld. CIT(A). ld. CIT-DR further mentioned that the assessee has not substantiated its contention and claim that no TDS would be applicable on the issues raised in the aforesaid grounds. The first ground pertaining to disallowance

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

1)(vii) on stand alone basis. 44. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of AO and the ld. CIT(A). ld. CIT-DR further mentioned that the assessee has not substantiated its contention and claim that no TDS would be applicable on the issues raised in the aforesaid grounds. The first ground pertaining to disallowance