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)

gain. Hence, the claim of depreciation on the assets acquired under the scheme of amalgamation is restricted only to the extent if such amalgamation has not taken place. The Assessing Officer made a reference to 5th proviso to Section 32 in para as under: As highlighted above, the company paid Rs.180.52 Crores in the preceding year as consideration for acquiring

TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

gain. Hence the claim of depreciation on the assets acquired under the scheme of amalgamation is restricted only to the extent 6 such amalgamation has not taken place. The Assessing Officer made a reference to filth proviso to Section 32 in para asunder: As highlighted above the company paid Rs.180.52 Crores in the preceding year as consideration for acquiring shares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. IL AND FS TAMILNADU POWER COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

capital account or on revenue account\nirrespective of whether it results in more tax or not. Consequently, the\ntransaction entered by the assessee would fall in the nature of revenue\nreceipt. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no case\nfor any interference to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) at this stage.\nAccordingly, all the grounds

K.K.SRINIVASAN,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

Capital Gain Scheme should have been made prior to due date under section 139(1) is untenable (259 CTR 388 P&H) - Copy enclosed. (b) Investment under section 54 B can be made within the period prescribed by Section 139(4) - 172 TTJ 412 Jp, 173 TTJ 634 Chd, 125 DTR 314 Chd. Assessee had specifically relied on the judgment

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

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

282 11. 20.01.2022 Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act 285 12. 09.02.2022 Reply to the Notice under Section 142(1) of the 287 Act dated 20.01.2022 13. - Annual report for Assessment Year: 2020 – 21 293 14. - Details of ICDS compliance 456 15. - Details of creditors 461 16. - Details of borrowings 466 17. - Details

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. ARUNCHALAM VEERAIAH, CHENNAI

In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed and allow the cross objection\nof the assessee

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadish\N\Nआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2320/Chny/2024\N& C.O.No.78/Chny/2024\N(In Ita No.2320/Chny/2024)\N(निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-2012)\N\Nthe Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax,\Ncorporate Circle 10,\Nchennai\N(Appellant)\Nvs. Arunchalam Veeraiah,\Nno.34, 14B, Beach Home Avenue,\Nbesant Nagar,\Nchennai 600 090.\N[Pan No.Aaipa 9044Q]\N(Respondent/Cross Objector)\N\Nassessee By\N: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate\Nrevenue By\N: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl. Cit.\N\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\N: 30.01.2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2025\N\Nआदेश / Order\N\Nmanu Kumar Giri ()\N\Nthe Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Arising\Nout Of The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),\Nnfac, Delhi (In Short The `Ld. Cit(A)"). The Assessment Order U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act'), Was Passed Vide Order Dated\N19.12.2019.\N\N2.\Nthe Registry Has Noted Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.\Nconsidering Reasons Stated In The Affidavit By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay\Nand Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.\N\N3.\Ngrounds Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are As Under:\N\N\"1. The Order Of The Cit (A) Is Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case\Nand Provisions Of Income Tax Act 1961.\N2. The Id. Cit (A) Erred To Hold That The Notice U/S 148 Was Sent For The Service\Nafter 10 Months Delay & Holding The Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2019 As Time\Nbarred.\N2.

capital gains on\nsale of property at Abhiramapuram in Paragraph 5.1 without assigning proper\nreasons and justification.\n7) The NFAC failed to appreciate that in any event, the entire re-computation of\nLTCG on various facets was wrong, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on\nfacts and in law.\n8) The Cross Objector/Assessee craves leave to file additional grounds

M/S. R.K. INVESTMENTS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-3(1),, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1159/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. R.K. Investments Dcit Ground Floor, Block-Iv, Non-Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ No.184-187,Temple Steps, Chennai. Vs. Anna Salai Little Mount, Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafr-3413-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

1. The Order of Principal Commissioner of lncome tax is contrary to law facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction in as much as the very issue whether the land transferred was agricultural land subject matter of examination and investigation at the time of regular assessment under section 143(3) as well

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, PARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because such provision is only on unascertained liability, which is not accrued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “43. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee made provision

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because such provision is only on unascertained liability, which is not accrued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “43. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee made provision

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because such provision is only on unascertained liability, which is not accrued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “43. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee made provision

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because such provision is only on unascertained liability, which is not accrued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “43. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee made provision

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, PARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because such provision is only on unascertained liability, which is not accrued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “43. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee made provision

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because such provision is only on unascertained liability, which is not accrued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “43. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee made provision

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because such provision is only on unascertained liability, which is not accrued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “43. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee made provision

M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because such provision is only on unascertained liability, which is not accrued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “43. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee made provision

ACIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because such provision is only on unascertained liability, which is not accrued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “43. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee made provision

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because such provision is only on unascertained liability, which is not accrued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “43. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee made provision

ACIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because such provision is only on unascertained liability, which is not accrued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “43. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee made provision