ANIL KUMAR GOEL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

249 ITR 306 (SC) re-assessment was based on the opinion of audit party was not permissible and was liable to be quashed. 7. At this point, it was informed to the Ld.AR that as the re-opening had two issues. One in regard to the treatment of the long term capital gains disclosed by the assessee as business income

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

gains on such reasonable basis as he may deem fit. Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section, "market value", in relation to any goods or services, means— (i) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market; or (ii) the arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where

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 -

249 (Del. ITAT) O Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR) O Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU [2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in this regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the case law paper book. - Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support services do not constitute

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(4

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

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are

4 to 7 of the impugned order. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Id. PCIT observed that the Assessing Officer has not specifically examined and failed to apply the amended provisions to First Schedule of Rule 5 of the IT Rules read with section 44 of the Act. 8. Further, he observed, the assessee claimed an amount

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

4 to 7 of the impugned order. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Id. PCIT observed that the Assessing Officer has not specifically examined and failed to apply the amended provisions to First Schedule of Rule 5 of the IT Rules read with section 44 of the Act. 8. Further, he observed, the assessee claimed an amount

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

4 I.T.A. No.1759/Chny/19 & Ors United India Insurance account of profit on sale of investments, thus, he held bifurcation of a single source of income is not permissible under statute classifying it under two different heads of income “LTCG” and “business income". Further, with regard to the claim of provision for diminution in the value of equities other than actively traded

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

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

4 I.T.A. No.1759/Chny/19 & Ors United India Insurance account of profit on sale of investments, thus, he held bifurcation of a single source of income is not permissible under statute classifying it under two different heads of income “LTCG” and “business income”. Further, with regard to the claim of provision for diminution in the value of equities other than actively traded

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

249/-) 66,564,612/- 54. There was no dispute on the existence of CWIP as on 31.03.2014 which was also evidenced through the audited financial statements, which was submitted before us (enclosed as Annexure 1 for your ready reference) and the lower authorities also has not contested this argument that if CWIP is included, the percentage of second hand machinery

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 80G for the sole reason that the receipts were produced in the course of the hearing and that the claim was not made in a revised return and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has purchased the rice mill such as land and building, machineries

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 80G for the sole reason that the receipts were produced in the course of the hearing and that the claim was not made in a revised return and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has purchased the rice mill such as land and building, machineries

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 80G for the sole reason that the receipts were produced in the course of the hearing and that the claim was not made in a revised return and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has purchased the rice mill such as land and building, machineries

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 80G for the sole reason that the receipts were produced in the course of the hearing and that the claim was not made in a revised return and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has purchased the rice mill such as land and building, machineries

KEMIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

gains were 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. The assessee also stated that

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)

4) and not the 1/3.In the result, the appellant gets a relief of Rs. 1,16,41,666/- (Rs. 3,53,66,666-Rs. 2,37,25,000).. Accordingly, the sale proceeds of the land of Rs. 9,49,00,000/- attracts the provisions of section 45(1) of the Act in the hands of the appellant as well

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

4 is prima facie not applicable to the instant case where the returned loss is NOT reduced by the reassessment. In fact, the returned income of assessee was accepted by the AO (after the assessee pointed out it could have actually claimed Capital Loss instead on indexation). Further, the CIT(A) also quotes Brij Mohan

KAMLESH SHANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

capital gain from sale of shares. The Assessing Officer further, on the basis of information filed by the assessee noted that assessee had originally purchased 10,00,000 equity shares of M/s. PS IT Infra & Services Ltd., on 16.08.2013 from M/s. Prem Sagar Vinimay Pvt .Ltd. through open offer @ ` 35 per equity share. These shares were subsequently demated and sold

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

capital gains of the assessee. 13. Now the question that arise for our consideration is, whether the material found during the course of search at third party premises viz., ::16 :: Page No. 61 of the pocket diary ID marked ANN/SK/SSSLLP/B&D/S-2 and the statement given by Shri R Sabapathy could establish any link with the assessee and whether it supported

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, PUDUCHERRY vs. KALAPET PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes’’

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

capital of such Cooperative Society out of funds provided by the State Government for the purpose; (ccvi) “primary credit society” means a Co-operative Society, other than a primary agricultural credit society,-’ In appeal, the assessee claimed to be a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank, a species of a primary co-operative bank, defined in section