ALTERNATIVE FOR INDIA DEVELOPMENT,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 247 & 248/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2024-25 Alternative For India The Commissioner Of Development, Vs. Income Tax (Exemption), No. 1, Vgn Nagar, Chennai. Iyyappanthangal, Kattupakkam Post, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aaata-4184-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. K.Vishwa Padmanaban, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin C.N Cit.

80G of the Income Tax Act,1961 respectively 2. The only ground raised by the assessee in these two appeals are the ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application filed by the assessee and denied the :-2-: ITA. Nos:247 & 248/Chny/2025 registration u/s.12AB and u/s.80G of the Act due to non-submission of the complete details and documents by the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE LTU-1,, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

iii) Disallowance of commission on export u/s.40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of TDS:- 4.7 The seventh ground of appeal relates to the disallowance under section 40 (a)(ia): Rs.1,40,83,245/-. The written submissions of the appellant are reproduced below: During the current Assessment Year, the assessee company has paid Export selling commission amounting to Rs.146.1

ACIT, LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

iii) Disallowance of commission on export u/s.40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of TDS:- 4.7 The seventh ground of appeal relates to the disallowance under section 40 (a)(ia): Rs.1,40,83,245/-. The written submissions of the appellant are reproduced below: During the current Assessment Year, the assessee company has paid Export selling commission amounting to Rs.146.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, , CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

iii) Disallowance of commission on export u/s.40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of TDS:- 4.7 The seventh ground of appeal relates to the disallowance under section 40 (a)(ia): Rs.1,40,83,245/-. The written submissions of the appellant are reproduced below: During the current Assessment Year, the assessee company has paid Export selling commission amounting to Rs.146.1

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

iii) Generally on 31 March the moneys remaining were adjusted. But on 31-3-2012 (in the hands of company) huge sum of Rs,17,38,74,036, which was outstanding, was withdrawn. But that day’s sales was only Rs.14,87,77,889. The assessee did not explain as to how he allowed all his customers to get refund

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

iii) Generally on 31 March the moneys remaining were adjusted. But on 31-3-2012 (in the hands of company) huge sum of Rs,17,38,74,036, which was outstanding, was withdrawn. But that day’s sales was only Rs.14,87,77,889. The assessee did not explain as to how he allowed all his customers to get refund

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

iii) Generally on 31 March the moneys remaining were adjusted. But on 31-3-2012 (in the hands of company) huge sum of Rs,17,38,74,036, which was outstanding, was withdrawn. But that day’s sales was only Rs.14,87,77,889. The assessee did not explain as to how he allowed all his customers to get refund

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

iii) Generally on 31 March the moneys remaining were adjusted. But on 31-3-2012 (in the hands of company) huge sum of Rs,17,38,74,036, which was outstanding, was withdrawn. But that day’s sales was only Rs.14,87,77,889. The assessee did not explain as to how he allowed all his customers to get refund