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

14A r.w. Rule 8D to the book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. 3.9 Overall therefore, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed and Ground No. 3 of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal and Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal relates to the disallowance of excess depreciation claimed

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

capital\ngain on sale of mutual funds were offered to tax as income from\nCapital Gains in the year in which they were sold. We do not find any\ninfirmity in the decision of the Id.CIT(A) to intervene with the above\norder of Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, this issue raised in the Grounds\nof appeal based on chart mentioned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

capital\ngain on sale of mutual funds were offered to tax as income from\nCapital Gains in the year in which they were sold. We do not find any\ninfirmity in the decision of the Id.CIT(A) to intervene with the above\norder of Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, this issue raised in the Grounds\nof appeal based on chart mentioned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

capital\ngain on sale of mutual funds were offered to tax as income from\nCapital Gains in the year in which they were sold. We do not find any\ninfirmity in the decision of the Id.CIT(A) to intervene with the above\norder of Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, this issue raised in the Grounds\nof appeal based on chart mentioned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

capital\ngain on sale of mutual funds were offered to tax as income from\nCapital Gains in the year in which they were sold. We do not find any\ninfirmity in the decision of the Id.CIT(A) to intervene with the above\norder of Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, this issue raised in the Grounds\nof appeal based on chart mentioned

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

capital\ngain on sale of mutual funds were offered to tax as income from\nCapital Gains in the year in which they were sold. We do not find any\ninfirmity in the decision of the Id.CIT(A) to intervene with the above\norder of Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, this issue raised in the Grounds\nof appeal based on chart mentioned

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

capital\ngain on sale of mutual funds were offered to tax as income from\nCapital Gains in the year in which they were sold. We do not find any\ninfirmity in the decision of the Id.CIT(A) to intervene with the above\norder of Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, this issue raised in the Grounds\nof appeal based on chart mentioned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

capital\ngain on sale of mutual funds were offered to tax as income from\nCapital Gains in the year in which they were sold. We do not find any\ninfirmity in the decision of the Id.CIT(A) to intervene with the above\norder of Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, this issue raised in the Grounds\nof appeal based on chart mentioned

ANIL KUMAR GOEL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

capital gain which the revenue had so accepted and hence there is consistency on the part of the Assessee in line with the spirit of the circular. 7. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that most of the shares sold during the accounting year were held for more than 2 years. 8. The CIT (Appeals) is wrong in placing

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3293/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New No. 21/Old No. 10A, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 13.09.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of ₹.1,83,53,540/- After Setting Off Of Carry Forward Loss Of ₹.9,67,40,138/-.

section 14A of the Act, long term capital gains, short term capital gain (non-STT) and STCG (STT). 2.1 Subsequently

IL&FS TAMILNADU POWER COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Corporate Circle-1(1), 4Th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Tax, Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1), Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Chennai 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

capital account or on revenue account irrespective of whether it results in more tax or not. Consequently, the transaction entered by the assessee would fall in the nature of revenue receipt. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no case for any interference to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) at this stage. Accordingly, all the grounds

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business loss (other than speculative loss) of earlier years shall be allowed to be set-off only against the profits

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business loss (other than speculative loss) of earlier years shall be allowed to be set-off only against the profits

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business loss (other than speculative loss) of earlier years shall be allowed to be set-off only against the profits

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business loss (other than speculative loss) of earlier years shall be allowed to be set-off only against the profits

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business loss (other than speculative loss) of earlier years shall be allowed to be set-off only against the profits

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business loss (other than speculative loss) of earlier years shall be allowed to be set-off only against the profits

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business loss (other than speculative loss) of earlier years shall be allowed to be set-off only against the profits