UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

249 placed\nat pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at\npages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims\nhave been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary\nproceedings cannot be initiated

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

249 placed\nat pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at\npages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims\nhave been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary\nproceedings cannot be initiated

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

249 placed\nat pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at\npages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims\nhave been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary\nproceedings cannot be initiated

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

249 placed\nat pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at\npages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims\nhave been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary\nproceedings cannot be initiated

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

249\n(Del. ITAT)\n\n- 19 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 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

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

249\n(Del. ITAT)\n- Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 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

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

249\n(Del. ITAT)\n- Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 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

KANNAN ASHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1545/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Kannan Asha, The Ito, Old No.6, New No.15, Ncw-1(1), Veera Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Akrpa 9370 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 45 r.w.s. 48 of the Act. Also, it is noted from page 12 of the impugned sale deed dated 24-08- 2016, that the appellant and the other three persons, viz; Mrs. B. Lakshmi, Mrs. V. Usha and Mr. B. Prakash, being legal heirs of Mr. K. BhoopathiChettiyar, have acquired the impugned properties comprised in Nanjai Survey No.s 58/128

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

249\n(Del. ITAT)\n\n- 19 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 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

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

249\n(Del. ITAT)\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 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

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

249\n(Del. ITAT)\nO Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 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

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

249\n(Del. ITAT)\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 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

DILIP KAPUR,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, NFAC, CIRCLE 1 , PONDICHERRY

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 984/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dilip Kapur The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Saint Martin Street, Income Tax, Pondicherry (Ut), Circle -1, Pondicherry – 605 001. Pondicherry – 605 003. [Pan: Adspd-4530-H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024

gains and offered it to tax of Rs.13,24,121/- so this cannot be subject matter of dispute. The AO on merits u/s.147 passed Order dated 27.09.2021 considering the assessee's submissions and accepted the assessee's Return of Income. Hence, on merits there was no addition to income as assessed in the Assessment :-5-: ITA. No: 984/Chny/2024 u/s.143

KATHIRVELU SUBBARAYAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3854/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21

capital gain in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal by invoking the provisions of section 249

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. PINNATHEVAR PALANICHAMY, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objection filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

249 cents on 22.01.2021 to Shri R. Sabapathy for\na sale consideration of Rs.49,70,04,000/- (approximately Rs.50 crores),\nwhich in its entirety was paid by him by way of Demand Drafts (details\ngiven in sale-deed) and that no portion was paid in cash, and that the\nentire sale consideration formed part of their books of accounts.\nThe

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 ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 23 :: 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

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 ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 23 :: 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

PANJAVARNAM SIVASUBRAMANIAN,TIRUPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , FACELESS ASSESSMENT

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

249 ITR 216 (SC), and pleaded that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity before the AO. 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. Panjavarnam Sivasubramanian :: 3 :: 4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the assessee is running hotel business under

DCIT, NCC 4(1), CHENNAI vs. SOHAN RAJ KHANTED GUVANTH RAJ, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1652/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Dcit, Shri Sohan Raj Khanted Ncc-4(1), Gunvanth Raj, Chennai. 17, Krishna Iyer Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Aafpk 9519 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain and take the benefit of the beneficial taxation regime provided by Section 111A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In addition to that the assessee also tried to take benefit of the deduction of interest expense by treating it as part of the cost of acquisition. However, from the facts listed above- it has been established beyond doubt