SHRI RAMASWAMY SHIVARAMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC - 1 (1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.571/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

section 54F is only out of a sham transaction for the purpose of avoidance of long term capital gains tax and is to be disallowed. 2.11 Thus, it follows that the transfer of shares as part of the 'sale consideration' is also a sham transaction wherein there is no intention of the parties to actually transfer any rights

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

207 Chen) O Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (97 DTR (Chennai Trib) 393) • Aqua Omega Services P Ltd v ACIT (23 ITR Trib 191 Chen) - In respect of those payments made to residents of Singapore, USA and UK, the tax treaties of these countries contain 'make available' clause. Since software AMC does not make available any technical knowledge, skill, know

C.KISHANLAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2928, 2929, 2930 & 2931/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2006-07, 2006-07, 2006-07, 2012-13

Section 234A and 234B of the Act, which are consequential in nature. Vide its grounds 3 to 5, assessee assails sustenance of an 4. addition of "90,62,161/-.(Actual figure it appears is "90,66,072/-) 5. Facts apropos are that assessee, a pawn broker, was subjected to a search u/s.132 of the Act on 04.01.2012. Consequent to this

KISHANLAL & SONS (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2928, 2929, 2930 & 2931/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2006-07, 2006-07, 2006-07, 2012-13

Section 234A and 234B of the Act, which are consequential in nature. Vide its grounds 3 to 5, assessee assails sustenance of an 4. addition of "90,62,161/-.(Actual figure it appears is "90,66,072/-) 5. Facts apropos are that assessee, a pawn broker, was subjected to a search u/s.132 of the Act on 04.01.2012. Consequent to this

R.SRINIVASAN -HUF,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TRICHY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

207. [PAN AAAHR 0264B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. M. Narayanan, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 08-06-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 15-07-2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Hyundai Motor India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park Income Tax, Irrungattukottai, 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Sriperumbudur Taluk, Ring Road, Kancheepuram District, Anna Nagar Western Tamil Nadu-602117 Extension, Chennai-600101 [Pan: Aaach2364M] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

capital gains; or (b) income of the nature referred to in sub-clause (ix) of clause (24) of section 2, and the assessee has paid the whole of the amount of tax payable in respect of income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be, had such income been a part of the total income

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005-06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 10.2 We find that this issue has been settled in assessee’s favor by coordinate bench

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005-06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 10.2 We find that this issue has been settled in assessee’s favor by coordinate bench

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005-06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 10.2 We find that this issue has been settled in assessee’s favor by coordinate bench

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005-06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 10.2 We find that this issue has been settled in assessee’s favor by coordinate bench

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005-06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 10.2 We find that this issue has been settled in assessee’s favor by coordinate bench