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 INNOVTIVE MICROFINANCE FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTIONS),CHENNAI CIRCLE, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

2(15) and the assessee is not entitled for the benefit of section 11 for that part of income generated in the hands of the assessee Running its micro finance business. Alternatively, one has to look into section 11(4A).. Sub-section (4A) provides that exemption shall not apply in relation to any income of a trust or an institution

M/S. INNOVATIVE MICRFINANCE FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION & COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2(15) and the assessee is not entitled for\nthe benefit of section 11 for that part of income generated in the hands of the\nassessee Running its micro finance business. Alternatively, one has to look into\nsection 11(4A).. Sub-section (4A) provides that exemption shall not apply in\nrelation to any income of a trust or an institution

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

15) or is it the last limb being an “object of general public utility”; vide\nitem No. 12 “Details of income accumulated under clause 2 of explanation\nto section 11(1)/11(2) having bearing on this assessment in the following\nformat from the AY 2008-09 onwards; vide item No. 13, Please furnish\nunit-wise break up and details

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

15) or is it the last limb being an “object of general public utility” ; vide item No. 12 “Details of income accumulated under clause 2 of explanation to section 11(1)/11(2) having bearing on this assessment in the following format from the AY 2008-09 onwards; vide item No. 13, Please furnish unit-wise break up and details

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

15 of DTAA between India & USA and therefore the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) for alleged non-deduction of TDS was deleted. 8.4 The Ld. CIT, DR however argued that, even if the assessee was of the view that no TDS was deductible on the impugned payment as it was not liable to tax India, then

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2(47) attracting capital gains tax in terms of Section 45(4) of the\nAct.\n22.\nIn the instant case, the firm is not taxed. It is the individual\npartners who are taxed. Moreover, in the instant case, the erstwhile\npartners have not retired, they also continued to be the partners along\nwith the incoming partners. All that has happened

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

capital\nexpenditure of Rs.5,56,722/-. The Ld AR accordingly submitted that, the\nfacts on record showed that, the entire surplus from the petrol bunk of\nRs.73,27,209/- had been applied towards the educational activities,\nnamely the music school and library activities of the assessee Trust. In\nlight of these facts, the Ld AR gave us a brief overview

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

15) or is it the last limb being an “object of general public utility”; vide\nitem No. 12 “Details of income accumulated under clause 2 of explanation\nto section 11(1)/11(2) having bearing on this assessment in the following\nformat from the AY 2008-09 onwards; vide item No. 13, Please furnish\nunit-wise break up and details

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

2(22)(d)/(a). • As the impugned transaction is not a buy-back u/s 77A of the Companies Act 1956, section 46A of the Income tax Act is not applicable read with Explanation to section 46A section_ 46A, Finance Act comment for section 46A and Circular Memorandum for No.3/2016 [F.No.225/19/2016/I7A.II] dated 26.2.2016. Section 46A does not have any role

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

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

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

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

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

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

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

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

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

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

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

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

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

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

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

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal