MEENA THIAGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gain on a plot of land purchased by her husband Shri Rajasekaran Sitaraman and admittedly, he has not filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year 2013-14. The assessee constructed new residential house on this land purchased only in the name of spouse of the assessee and claimed exemption u/s.54F

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Section 153C of the Act and therefore objected to the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the AO u/s 153C of the Act. Upholding this contention of the assessee, the Tribunal is noted to have held as under:- 12. We further find ourselves to be in agreement with the Id. A.R that the 'Statement' of Sh. Abhinandan Lodha (supra) recorded under

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Section 153C of the Act, as was originally introduced by the Finance Act 2003, which prescribed a stronger safeguard for persons who had not been searched viz., the seized material forming the basis of the satisfaction note must ‘belong’ to the ‘other person’. It was judicially held that, where any seized document of the searched person simply ‘pertains

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Section 153C of the Act, as was originally introduced by the Finance Act 2003, which prescribed a stronger safeguard for persons who had not been searched viz., the seized material forming the basis of the satisfaction note must ‘belong’ to the ‘other person’. It was judicially held that, where any seized document of the searched person simply ‘pertains

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Section 153C of the Act, as was originally introduced by the Finance Act 2003, which prescribed a stronger safeguard for persons who had not been searched viz., the seized material forming the basis of the satisfaction note must ‘belong’ to the ‘other person’. It was judicially held that, where any seized document of the searched person simply ‘pertains

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Section 153C of the Act, as was originally introduced by the Finance Act 2003, which prescribed a stronger safeguard for persons who had not been searched viz., the seized material forming the basis of the satisfaction note must ‘belong’ to the ‘other person’. It was judicially held that, where any seized document of the searched person simply ‘pertains

A.LALICHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gains in the hands of the Assessee. In these circumstances, the findings of the learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer on this issue stands reversed.” 4. The learned Counsel for the Assessee further stated that the Revenue has carried this matter before the Hon’ble High Court reported in [2019] 104 taxmann.com 30 (Madras) in the case

DCIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2232/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

gainfully refer to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria (1994) 208 ITR 616. The learned court was considering section 36 (1) (iii) and was pleased to observe as under (page 620) : 'The only enquiry that is to be made is whether the payment of interest was in respect of capital borrowed

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LTD., TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

gains from business. The ld. DR drew our attention to para 7 of the impugned order and submits that the ld. CIT(A) held the said incentive received from the Government as a capital receipt by placing reliance on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 47 & 48/Mds/2016 dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING P LTD, TIRUPPUR,TAMILNADU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

gains from business. The ld. DR drew our attention to para 7 of the impugned order and submits that the ld. CIT(A) held the said incentive received from the Government as a capital receipt by placing reliance on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 47 & 48/Mds/2016 dated

GEENA GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

gains from business. The ld. DR drew our attention to para 7 of the impugned order and submits that the ld. CIT(A) held the said incentive received from the Government as a capital receipt by placing reliance on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 47 & 48/Mds/2016 dated

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

260A of the Act which was admitted by a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 9.1.2009, by framing the following substantial questions of law:— "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in entertaining a change of claim of deduction by the assessee from

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

260A of the Act which was admitted by a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 9.1.2009, by framing the following substantial questions of law:— "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in entertaining a change of claim of deduction by the assessee from

LIFECELL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

capital expenditure disallowed under section 35(2AB) under the provisions of Section 35(l)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. In connection with computation of tax: 23. The CIT(A) failed to note that the Appellant was entitled to credit of tax paid u/s 115JAA of the Act which was not provided

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

gains’’. 54. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1604/CHNY/2016 for assessment year 2011-2012 stands allowed. Now, we take up cross appeals No. 1740/CHNY/2016 and 55. 2014/CHNY/2016 filed by assessee and Revenue respectively for assessment year 2012-2013. 56. The assessee in ITA No.1740/CHNY/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal. ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

gains’’. 54. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1604/CHNY/2016 for assessment year 2011-2012 stands allowed. Now, we take up cross appeals No. 1740/CHNY/2016 and 55. 2014/CHNY/2016 filed by assessee and Revenue respectively for assessment year 2012-2013. 56. The assessee in ITA No.1740/CHNY/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal. ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

gains’’. 54. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1604/CHNY/2016 for assessment year 2011-2012 stands allowed. Now, we take up cross appeals No. 1740/CHNY/2016 and 55. 2014/CHNY/2016 filed by assessee and Revenue respectively for assessment year 2012-2013. 56. The assessee in ITA No.1740/CHNY/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal. ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011

SHRIRAM EPC LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

gains’’. 54. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1604/CHNY/2016 for assessment year 2011-2012 stands allowed. Now, we take up cross appeals No. 1740/CHNY/2016 and 55. 2014/CHNY/2016 filed by assessee and Revenue respectively for assessment year 2012-2013. 56. The assessee in ITA No.1740/CHNY/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal. ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

gains’’. 54. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1604/CHNY/2016 for assessment year 2011-2012 stands allowed. Now, we take up cross appeals No. 1740/CHNY/2016 and 55. 2014/CHNY/2016 filed by assessee and Revenue respectively for assessment year 2012-2013. 56. The assessee in ITA No.1740/CHNY/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal. ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011