ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. LATE SHRI NAREN RAJAN, REP.BY L/H SMT. PADMINI V.R, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act towards advance received from M/s Tristar Accommodation Limited for purchase of villas and payment made as security deposit for Joint Development Agreement. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 31 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 ITA Nos.1002 & 1161/CHNY/2018 19. The first issue that came up for our consideration

PADMINI RAJAN, L/R OF LATE (SHRI) NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act towards advance received from M/s Tristar Accommodation Limited for purchase of villas and payment made as security deposit for Joint Development Agreement. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 31 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 ITA Nos.1002 & 1161/CHNY/2018 19. The first issue that came up for our consideration

NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act towards advance received from M/s Tristar Accommodation Limited for purchase of villas and payment made as security deposit for Joint Development Agreement. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 31 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 ITA Nos.1002 & 1161/CHNY/2018 19. The first issue that came up for our consideration

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

deemed to be paid, credited or :-7-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 distributed and thus in the absence of any evidence to show that the dividend warrants were handed over to the Assessee within the years of account it could not be held that there was a liability to pay income tax on the same

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

deemed to be paid, credited or :-7-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 distributed and thus in the absence of any evidence to show that the dividend warrants were handed over to the Assessee within the years of account it could not be held that there was a liability to pay income tax on the same

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

dividend yielding investments, which was placed before us. Having perused the same, it is noted that the exempt income was derived from investments having value of Rs.122,07,95,018/-whose 0.5% works out to Rs.61,03,975/-. Having regard to the suo moto disallowance of Rs.33,15,155/- already offered ITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16) M/s. Ashok Leyland

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains and disclosure made by assessee was not true and correct. The ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex Private Limited reported in (2012) 340 ITR 609(Mad.) and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Limited

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains and disclosure made by assessee was not true and correct. The ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex Private Limited reported in (2012) 340 ITR 609(Mad.) and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Limited

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains and disclosure made by assessee was not true and correct. The ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex Private Limited reported in (2012) 340 ITR 609(Mad.) and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Limited

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains and disclosure made by assessee was not true and correct. The ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex Private Limited reported in (2012) 340 ITR 609(Mad.) and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Limited

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

gains are to be derived from the business of developing SEZ. The Ld. AR for the assessee invited our attention to the letter of approval issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated 25.04.2008, copy of which was placed at Pages 106-109 of the paper- book and contended that the assessee was a ‘co-developer’ and therefore it qualified

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.269/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Cognizant Technology- The Asst. Commissioner- Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, 5/535, Okkiam, Thoriapakkam, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 096. [Pan:Aaacd 3312 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Counsel For Shri N.V. Balaji, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Shankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor – General Of India For Shri A.P.Srinivas, Sr. Standing Counsel : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.07.2023 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023

gains on buyback of shares and also taken note of relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, deals with buyback of shares, capital reduction and arrangement & compromise referred to u/ss.391 to 393 of the Companies Act, 1956, held that consideration paid by the assessee to its shareholders for purchase of its own shares was liable to tax as deemed dividend

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SMT. REETA LANKALINGAM, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S.S. Godara

deemed dividend decided hereinabove, invoke estoppel principle and reject the assessee’s grounds as not maintainable. It is made clear that this estoppel bars the assessee only on facts and not on law. On latter limb, we are of the view that even if an assessee submits to assessment of a particular sum, he can still argue for appropriate application

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GRWOTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

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

dividend or interest or capital gains that has to be offered to tax in the hands of the beneficiaries. The investment manger had stated that the interest income has to be included as income from other sources and pay tax at the applicable rates in the hands of the beneficiary. On the contrary, Form No.64 issued by the ITA Nos.1345

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

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

dividend or interest or capital gains that has to be offered to tax in the hands of the beneficiaries. The investment manger had stated that the interest income has to be included as income from other sources and pay tax at the applicable rates in the hands of the beneficiary. On the contrary, Form No.64 issued by the ITA Nos.1345

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

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

dividend or interest or capital gains that has to be offered to tax in the hands of the beneficiaries. The investment manger had stated that the interest income has to be included as income from other sources and pay tax at the applicable rates in the hands of the beneficiary. On the contrary, Form No.64 issued by the ITA Nos.1345

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

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

dividend or interest or capital gains that has to be offered to tax in the hands of the beneficiaries. The investment manger had stated that the interest income has to be included as income from other sources and pay tax at the applicable rates in the hands of the beneficiary. On the contrary, Form No.64 issued by the ITA Nos.1345

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

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

dividend or interest or capital gains that has to be offered to tax in the hands of the beneficiaries. The investment manger had stated that the interest income has to be included as income from other sources and pay tax at the applicable rates in the hands of the beneficiary. On the contrary, Form No.64 issued by the ITA Nos.1345