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)

viii) any work of art; or (ix) bullion; (e) "relative" means,— (i) in case of an individual— (A) spouse of the individual; (B) brother or sister of the individual; (C) brother or sister of the spouse of the individual; (D) brother or sister of either of the parents of the individual; (E) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the individual

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS on transfer of immovable property (other than agricultural land) above\na prescribed threshold.\n• TCS on trading in coal, lignite, and iron ore.\n• Enhanced onus of proof on closely held companies for funds received\nfrom shareholders, and taxation of share premium in excess of fair\nmarket value.\n• Taxation of unexplained money, credits, investments, or expenditures

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

56(2)(viii) of the Act, brushing aside the overriding provisions of RFCTLARR Act 2013 over the IT Act by virtue of Section 96 of said RFCTLARR Act 2013 and consequently grossly erred in bringing to tax, interest received for compulsory acquisition of land. The ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by relying upon various

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section

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.

TDS return filed by acquirer is more than sale consideration reported in the return of income and (ii) substantial increase in capital in the impugned year. Notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 28.09.2019 was issued. Notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued

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

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

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , COIMBATORE vs. M/S POOJA MARKETING, MALAD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

viii) of clause (24) of section 2; (ib) income referred to in sub-clause (ix) of clause (24) of section 2 Thus for the purpose of taxation, the legislature included winning from lotteries u/s 56(2)(ib) of the Act and the same, therefore, would fall under residuary head of income as contemplated u/s 56. 3.3 The Ld. AO further

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , COIMBATORE vs. M/S POOJA MARKETING, MALAD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

viii) of clause (24) of section 2; (ib) income referred to in sub-clause (ix) of clause (24) of section 2 Thus for the purpose of taxation, the legislature included winning from lotteries u/s 56(2)(ib) of the Act and the same, therefore, would fall under residuary head of income as contemplated u/s 56. 3.3 The Ld. AO further

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

56,55,300/- for the assessment year 2011-12 is at very high side. Thus considering the earlier order of the Tribunal on this issue for the assessment year 2008-09 in assessee own case, we are of the opinion that the above entire expenditure cannot be disallowed. However, we cannot rule out the incurring of management expenses

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

56,55,300/- for the assessment year 2011-12 is at very high side. Thus considering the earlier order of the Tribunal on this issue for the assessment year 2008-09 in assessee own case, we are of the opinion that the above entire expenditure cannot be disallowed. However, we cannot rule out the incurring of management expenses

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

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

56. Additional questions are framed in the case of Department. There are 5 issues in favour of assessee (issue Nos. 1 and 2 are wrongly framed by the Court). However, in view of our above discussion, they are required to be answered in favour of the assessee. 16 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 57. In case of appeal preferred

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

56. Additional questions are framed in the case of Department. There are 5 issues in favour of assessee (issue Nos. 1 and 2 are wrongly framed by the Court). However, in view of our above discussion, they are required to be answered in favour of the assessee. 16 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 57. In case of appeal preferred

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

56. Additional questions are framed in the case of Department. There are 5 issues in favour of assessee (issue Nos. 1 and 2 are wrongly framed by the Court). However, in view of our above discussion, they are required to be answered in favour of the assessee. 16 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 57. In case of appeal preferred

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

56. Additional questions are framed in the case of Department. There are 5 issues in favour of assessee (issue Nos. 1 and 2 are wrongly framed by the Court). However, in view of our above discussion, they are required to be answered in favour of the assessee. 16 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 57. In case of appeal preferred

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

56. Additional questions are framed in the case of Department. There are 5 issues in favour of assessee (issue Nos. 1 and 2 are wrongly framed by the Court). However, in view of our above discussion, they are required to be answered in favour of the assessee. 16 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 57. In case of appeal preferred

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

56. Additional questions are framed in the case of Department. There are 5 issues in favour of assessee (issue Nos. 1 and 2 are wrongly framed by the Court). However, in view of our above discussion, they are required to be answered in favour of the assessee. 16 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 57. In case of appeal preferred

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

56. Additional questions are framed in the case of Department. There are 5 issues in favour of assessee (issue Nos. 1 and 2 are wrongly framed by the Court). However, in view of our above discussion, they are required to be answered in favour of the assessee. 16 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 57. In case of appeal preferred

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

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

56. Additional questions are framed in the case of Department. There are 5 issues in favour of assessee (issue Nos. 1 and 2 are wrongly framed by the Court). However, in view of our above discussion, they are required to be answered in favour of the assessee. 16 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 57. In case of appeal preferred