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

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

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 gains. In other words the obligation to pay tax arises out of the assessed income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal stating that the assessee has not paid the advance tax and therefore the appeal is not maintainable under section 249(4) of the act. Before proceeding further we will look

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

gains on such\nreasonable basis as he may deem fit.\nExplanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section, "market value", in\nrelation to any goods or services, means—\n(i) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the\nopen market; or\n(ii) the arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section

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

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

gains on such\nreasonable basis as he may deem fit.\n\nExplanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section, "market value", in\nrelation to any goods or services, means—\n(i) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the\nopen market; or\n(ii) the arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

249 is less than the threshold limit of INR 5,000,000 prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as amended vide Finance Act, 2021, read with CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 and as a result the case cannot be subjected to reassessment proceedings and such proceedings conducted by the Ld. AO is barred

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

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee