ITO(EXCEMPTION) TRICHY, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, both ITA No

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Grama Vidiyal Trust, (Exemptions), Trichy Vs. No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-620001 (Pan: Aaatg2928F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri N. V. Balaji, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arv. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No. 156/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 04.03.2019 & 163/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 22.02.2019 Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Ito, Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Both Dated 30.12.2017 For Ays 2009-10 & 2011-12. 2. First We Take Up Ita No. 1534/Chny/2019 For Ay 2009-10 For Which The Revised Ground Taken By The Revenue Is As Under:

section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable in those cases where exemption u/s. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was denied.” 3 Brief facts as culled out from the record are that Grama Vidiyal Trust (in short “GVT”) was created as a public charitable trust on 01.04.1997 which was granted 12AA registration

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

ACIT, CUDDALORE vs. UMAYAL ANNAMALAI, CHIDAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

221 (Mum) also held the similar view. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Jalan reported in 286 ITR 274 held that the capital gains is not chargeable when the appellant has purchased the new property before the extended due date of filing of return u/s 139(4) of the IT Act for the purpose

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI vs. MANGAL TIRTH ESTATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1965/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income-Tax, V. No. 769, Spencer Plaza, Corporate Circle-4(1), Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023

section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and adopted deemed consideration for computation of long term capital gains. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: From the above noting the following points emerged : 1. As on 31.03.1999, Out of 1,50,000 sq.ft. the assessee company had handed over

FL SMIDTH PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3423/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Flsmidth Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Vs. Income Tax, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Company Circle – 2 (1), Chennai – 603 103. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaacf4997N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri M. Rajan, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 01.03.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai Dated 11.10.2019, Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012–13. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ['Cit (A)’] Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D 2.1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 75,94,632 Under Section 14A Read With Rule 8D.

capital gains from Rs. 6,59,07,526 to Rs. 6,39,81,926, hence the differential loss of Rs.19,25,600 should be allowed to be set-off in the subject assessment year. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, rescind, modify and/or withdraw in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds

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

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 -

221 248 Taxman 55 wherein the Division Bench of the Court followed another Division Bench judgment in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257 (Mad.) and held that the view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, which has been relied by the Tribunal

ACIT, TRICHY vs. P.MURUGESAN, THANJAVUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

221/- where as as per the return there is a credit balance. When the Authorised Representative of the assessee was asked to reconcile the difference, he could not file any details to the extent of ₹15,85,000/-- show as amount transferred from purchase account. No books of accounts were produced for the general account i.e., transactions other than

P.MURUGESAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

221/- where as as per the return there is a credit balance. When the Authorised Representative of the assessee was asked to reconcile the difference, he could not file any details to the extent of ₹15,85,000/-- show as amount transferred from purchase account. No books of accounts were produced for the general account i.e., transactions other than

ACIT, TRICHY vs. SHRI P.JANAKAR, DINDIGUL

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

221/- where as as per the return there is a credit balance. When the Authorised Representative of the assessee was asked to reconcile the difference, he could not file any details to the extent of ₹15,85,000/-- show as amount transferred from purchase account. No books of accounts were produced for the general account i.e., transactions other than

SRI PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYATHAMMAL EDUCTIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

221/- where as as per the return there is a credit balance. When the Authorised Representative of the assessee was asked to reconcile the difference, he could not file any details to the extent of ₹15,85,000/-- show as amount transferred from purchase account. No books of accounts were produced for the general account i.e., transactions other than

ACIT, TRICHY vs. SHRI R.VISWANATHAN, DINDIGUL

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

221/- where as as per the return there is a credit balance. When the Authorised Representative of the assessee was asked to reconcile the difference, he could not file any details to the extent of ₹15,85,000/-- show as amount transferred from purchase account. No books of accounts were produced for the general account i.e., transactions other than