DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TVS INVESTMENTS LRD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 48 of IT Act provides for mode of computation of capital gains. The starting point of computation is the full value of consideration received or accruing. What in fact never accrued or was never received cannot be computed as capital gains u/s 48. In the case of KP Vargheese vs ITO Ernakulam 131 ITR 597, the Supreme Court

GOVINDARAJAN RAMASAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2551/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 54F) where the construction is not completed within the prescribed time, as is for the non-utilisation of the funds within the said period or acquisition of another residential house within the defined period (s.54F(4)), both, again, future events. Therefore, where the assessee has discharged his obligation, investing the sale proceeds (net consideration) of the original asset

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

184 (AAR)\n\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n\nRoutine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support\nservices do not constitute 'technical services':\n\nΟ\nLufthansa Cargo India

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

184 (AAR)\n• Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support\nservices do not constitute 'technical services':\n• Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT

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

184 (AAR)\n- Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support\nservices do not constitute 'technical services':\n- Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT

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

184 (AAR)\n\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support\nservices do not constitute 'technical services':\n\nΟ Lufthansa Cargo India

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

184 (AAR)\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support\nservices do not constitute 'technical services':\nΟ Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT

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

184 (AAR)\nO Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support\nservices do not constitute 'technical services':\nO Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT

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

184 (AAR)\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support\nservices do not constitute 'technical services':\nΟ Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT

FLSMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT- 1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1636/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Flsmidth Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam Vs. Income Tax-1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N]

184,53,19,919 (as on 31.03.2014) and Rs. 76,26,31,718 (as on 31.03.2013) and this being the amount reduced from the billed amount which the assessee had already charged its clients. Since the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting, income :- 4 -: accrues the moment bill is raised by the assessee. When the bill raised by the assessee

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

5 of the questionnaire issued under\nsection 142(1) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the assessee replied\nthat no assets acquired during the year under consideration in respect of\nquestion No. 7 as details of capital assets acquired. Against question No.\n12 of the questionnaire, vide item No. 10 of its reply, the assessee stated\nthat

N BASKAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gains’. 3.1 However, the Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai vide his re-assessment order dated 23.03.2016 u/s 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act had brought to tax `38,78,5151- u/s 56(2)(viii) r.w section 57(iv) of the Act in the computation of taxable total income. The assessee received total compensation

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

gains were computed and the assessee requested for deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as the sale consideration received was utilized for purchase of a new flat, in which, the name of the assessee's wife was also included as a purchaser. The assessee further stated about the sale of livestock and standing crops. The assessee also stated that

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

gains were computed and the assessee requested for deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as the sale consideration received was utilized for purchase of a new flat, in which, the name of the assessee's wife was also included as a purchaser. The assessee further stated about the sale of livestock and standing crops. The assessee also stated that

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

5 of the questionnaire issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the assessee replied that no assets acquired during the year under consideration in respect of question No. 7 as details of capital assets acquired. Against question No. 12 of the questionnaire, vide item No. 10 of its reply, the assessee stated that

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

5 of the questionnaire issued under\nsection 142(1) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the assessee replied\nthat no assets acquired during the year under consideration in respect of\nquestion No. 7 as details of capital assets acquired. Against question No.\n12 of the questionnaire, vide item No. 10 of its reply, the assessee stated\nthat

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

gains from business or profession", the deduction account of interest on borrowed fund is provided under section 36(1)(iii) the Act, where the business assets are acquired out of borrowed funds. At this stage, it may be pertinent to note that depreciation is also allowable as deduction under section 32 in respect of business assets on the cost

V GOVIND (HUF),VELACHERY MAIN ROAD vs. ACIT, GREAMS ROAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

184 days. In view of the reasons, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for delay and hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Ground No.10 raised before ITAT, which reads as under:- “10. The appellant craves leave to refer to the various