DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess. Explanation.- in this clause, (a) "specified entity" means,- (i) a financial corporation specified in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) ; (ii) a financial corporation which is a public sector company ; (iii) a banking

TRIVITRON HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- “Sapthagiri Bhavan”, Of Income Tax, New No.15, Old No.25, Corporate Circle-3(1), Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan, Chennai. 4Th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 9378 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

va) of the Act. The case has been, subsequently taken up for revision proceedings by the Principal CIT, Chennai-3, and issued show cause notice u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 07.02.2019 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer shall not be revised. The Principal

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

va) in section 28 by Finance Act, 2002 effective from 1.4.2003. Prior to amendment, it was held to be not taxable where the non-compete fee related to a business as a whole, as for example decided in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC). In such cases, it would be a capital receipt

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

va) in section 28 by Finance Act, 2002 effective from 1.4.2003. Prior to amendment, it was held to be not taxable where the non-compete fee related to a business as a whole, as for example decided in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC). In such cases, it would be a capital receipt

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

va) in section 28 by Finance Act, 2002 effective from 1.4.2003. Prior to amendment, it was held to be not taxable where the non-compete fee related to a business as a whole, as for example decided in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC). In such cases, it would be a capital receipt

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

va) in section 28 by Finance Act, 2002 effective from 1.4.2003. Prior to amendment, it was held to be not taxable where the non-compete fee related to a business as a whole, as for example decided in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC). In such cases, it would be a capital receipt

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

va) of the Act and the assessee had responded to the said Show Cause Notice by placing on record the above submissions in support of the prayer to drop the said proposal following which the Assessing Officer had proceeded to pass the scrutiny assessment order dated 20.09.2022 by not making proposed disallowance in accepting the return of income filed

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

va) except when the receipts are chargeable to tax under the head ‘capital gains’. The assessee has not treated the payment on revenue account but treated the same as intangible asset and incorrectly claimed depreciation. Accordingly, the depreciation claim of Rs.107.81 Lacs was disallowed. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) endorsed the views of Ld. AO that non-compete fees

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

va) except when the receipts are chargeable to tax under the head ‘capital gains’. The assessee has not treated the payment on revenue account but treated the same as intangible asset and incorrectly claimed depreciation. Accordingly, the depreciation claim of Rs.107.81 Lacs was disallowed. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) endorsed the views of Ld. AO that non-compete fees

HARITA FEHRER LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT SALARY CIRCLE II , CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

va) except when the receipts are chargeable to tax under the head ‘capital gains’. The assessee has not treated the payment on revenue account but treated the same as intangible asset and incorrectly claimed depreciation. Accordingly, the depreciation claim of Rs.107.81 Lacs was disallowed. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) endorsed the views of Ld. AO that non-compete fees

HARITA FEHRER LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (2),, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

va) except when the receipts are chargeable to tax under the head ‘capital gains’. The assessee has not treated the payment on revenue account but treated the same as intangible asset and incorrectly claimed depreciation. Accordingly, the depreciation claim of Rs.107.81 Lacs was disallowed. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) endorsed the views of Ld. AO that non-compete fees

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

23 1TR(T) 191 (Chennai - Trib.) Head-note: Section 9, read with section 40(a)(i), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income - Deemed to accrue or arise in India Fees for technical services - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee was in business of providing underwater diving services in Saudi Arabia undera contract and paid fees to non-resident divers there

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

23 1TR(T) 191 (Chennai - Trib.) Head-note: Section 9, read with section 40(a)(i), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income - Deemed to accrue or arise in India Fees for technical services - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee was in business of providing underwater diving services in Saudi Arabia undera contract and paid fees to non-resident divers there

SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

va) of the Act was made to tax the non compete fee received from assessment Year 2003-04. Therefore the provision of non compete fee terminology cannot be accepted and we dismiss the ground of the Revenue and upheld the findings of the ld. DRP in treating as income from Capital Gains. 3.8 In the result, the appeal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

va) of the Act was made to tax the non compete fee received from assessment Year 2003-04. Therefore the provision of non compete fee terminology cannot be accepted and we dismiss the ground of the Revenue and upheld the findings of the ld. DRP in treating as income from Capital Gains. 3.8 In the result, the appeal

BANCA SELLA S.P.A. CHENNAI BRANCH (IT DIVISION),CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

va) of the Act was made to tax the non compete fee received from assessment Year 2003-04. Therefore the provision of non compete fee terminology cannot be accepted and we dismiss the ground of the Revenue and upheld the findings of the ld. DRP in treating as income from Capital Gains. 3.8 In the result, the appeal

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

P.S.SHEKAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1050/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Section 28(va) will be applicable in the case of the assessee and accordingly the amount received by the assessee has to be treated as ‘income from business’ and not long term capital gain as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly he treated the long term capital gain of Rs.1,22,93,556/- declared by the assessee as ‘income from business

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

va) of the Act . The AO has observed that the assessee had not deposited the employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund within the due date mentioned in the “The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952”. Therefore, the AO disallowed the sum of Rs.2,08,834/- which was employee’s contribution towards PF. 9.1 The Ld.AR submitted that