MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

2)(b) cannot disturb that position. Learned Departmental Representative then contends that these amounts cannot be in the nature of capital receipt since no capital asset was transferred during the relevant financial period. We are unable to see any merits in this plea. The amount being in the nature of capital receipt, which can only be taxed as capital gain

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

capital asset under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, there must be a “contract” which can be enforced in law under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act A reading of Section 1 7(IA) and Section 49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital gains. It is submitted that the expression used is “the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer”. The expression “in connection with such transfer” has to be seen in a wider manner and given a larger liberal interpretation. In the present case, the Assessee shall endeavor to prove that the expenditure incurred or paid was absolutely

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital gains. It is submitted that the expression used is “the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer”. The expression “in connection with such transfer” has to be seen in a wider manner and given a larger liberal interpretation. In the present case, the Assessee shall endeavor to prove that the expenditure incurred or paid was absolutely

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

13) - Brakes India Limited vs. DCIT [2017] 56 ITR(T) 341 (Chennai -Trib.)” 6.4 In light of the above therefore, we hold that the lower authorities were not justified in curtailing the deduction u/s 35(2AB) in the pre- amended pre period and direct deletion of the disallowance of the weighted deduction of Rs.2,47,62,660/-. This ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MANIKANDAN, CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

13 -:\nITA No.2986/Chny/2025\nManikandan\nrepresents inducted partners along with erstwhile partners. As rightly\npointed by the appellate authorities in the scheme of the Income Tax Act,\nthere is no provision for levying capital gains on such consideration\nreceived for reduction of the share in the partnership firm. The\nprovisions of Section 45(3) or 45(4) is not applicable

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

13 :: Ramesh B. Desai vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta [2006] 69 SCL 211 (SC).] Other than the nature of 77A buy-backs, purchase of own shares' is just not possible without effecting 'capital reduction'; in reality also, assessee has carried out the impugned transaction of 'purchase of own shares' by effecting 'capital reduction only. Admittedly, assessee's transaction

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing