M/S. CITY UNION BANK,,KUMBAKONAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1),, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

36(1)(viii) of the Act, on the ground that, as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, prescribed method has been provided for computing deduction for eligible profit and as per said section, an amount not exceeding 20% of profit derived from eligible business computed under the head ‘profit

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

36(1)(viii) of the Act, on the ground that, as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, prescribed method has been provided for computing deduction for eligible profit and as per said section, an amount not exceeding 20% of profit derived from eligible business computed under the head ‘profit

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

36(1)(viii) of the Act, on the ground that, as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, prescribed method has been provided for computing deduction for eligible profit and as per said section, an amount not exceeding 20% of profit derived from eligible business computed under the head ‘profit

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

36(1)(viii) of the Act, on the ground that, as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, prescribed method has been provided for computing deduction for eligible profit and as per said section, an amount not exceeding 20% of profit derived from eligible business computed under the head ‘profit

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

36(1)(viii) of the Act, on the ground that, as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, prescribed method has been provided for computing deduction for eligible profit and as per said section, an amount not exceeding 20% of profit derived from eligible business computed under the head ‘profit

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

capital and reserves exceeded the\ninvestment made in equity and courts have held that if own funds\nexceeded the investments in dividend-yielding assets, the general\npresumption would be that assessee's own funds were used to make\nsuch investment. However, in this case, the assessee until AY 2006-\n07, consistently claimed, that borrowed funds were used for dividend-\nyielding

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CO. CIRCLE - II (3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

capital and reserves exceeded the investment made in equity and courts have held that if own funds exceeded the investments in dividend-yielding assets, the general presumption would be that assessee’s own funds were used to make such investment. However, in this case, the assessee until AY 2006- 07 , consistently claimed , that borrowed funds were used for dividend- yielding

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. IDFC LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

capital and reserves exceeded the investment made in equity and courts have held that if own funds exceeded the investments in dividend-yielding assets, the general presumption would be that assessee’s own funds were used to make such investment. However, in this case, the assessee until AY 2006- 07 , consistently claimed , that borrowed funds were used for dividend- yielding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

viii) Various benches of the Tribunal have consistently taken a view that a claim of the assessee is maintainable as bad debt. It is not the case of the Revenue that the transaction in question was not bona fide or that the assessee has attempted to conceal taxable income or that this is a device for evasion of payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

viii) Various benches of the Tribunal have consistently taken a view that a claim of the assessee is maintainable as bad debt. It is not the case of the Revenue that the transaction in question was not bona fide or that the assessee has attempted to conceal taxable income or that this is a device for evasion of payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

viii) Various benches of the Tribunal have consistently taken a view that a claim of the assessee is maintainable as bad debt. It is not the case of the Revenue that the transaction in question was not bona fide or that the assessee has attempted to conceal taxable income or that this is a device for evasion of payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

viii) Various benches of the Tribunal have consistently taken a view that a claim of the assessee is maintainable as bad debt. It is not the case of the Revenue that the transaction in question was not bona fide or that the assessee has attempted to conceal taxable income or that this is a device for evasion of payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

viii) Various benches of the Tribunal have consistently taken a view that a claim of the assessee is maintainable as bad debt. It is not the case of the Revenue that the transaction in question was not bona fide or that the assessee has attempted to conceal taxable income or that this is a device for evasion of payment

LATE S. YOGARATHINAM, REP. BY L/H Y. SHANMUGA DURAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

36 CCH 0008(Cochin) and also Redington (India) Ltd. Vs. JCIT reported in 40 CCH 527 (Chennai). 15. In view of this, in our opinion the artificial distinction made by the lower authorities with reference to the Gift and Settlement is not appropriate and we are of the opinion that for the purpose of -Sec.49(1)(i), there

ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

viii) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the\nAuthority for Advance Rulings 36[or before the Board for Advance Rulings] under\nsub-section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the order\n\nrejecting the application is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner\nunder sub-section

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

36,000/-. The\nAO therefore treated the enhanced valuation of gifted properties as artificially\ninflated and unacceptable.\n12. In view of the above, the AO held that the assessee had failed to\nsubstantiate the increase in capital amounting to Rs.115,26,13,606/- and\ntreated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act.\n13. The AO further noted

THE KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KANYAKUMRI vs. PCIT-1, MADURAI, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Capital and Liabilities Amount 31.03.2014 No. 31.03.2015 63302258.53 III B.D.R. OF THE BANK 683355383.57 i.NPA Reserves 298431983.62 ii. Res. Against Std Assets 55779824.60 iii. Bad Debt Reserve 3011689.75 iv. Additional Provision for 250000000.00 NPA v. Non Statutory Reserves 76131885.60 The ld.counsel then took us to the profit & loss account for the year ending 31.03.2015 wherein ‘Reserve Expenses’ are claimed

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order of the first appeal.\n\n27. The assessee aggrieved with the said order of the Ld.CIT(A) had filed the present appeal before us, by raising grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153A of the Act as well as on merits

THANARAJ SUMATHI,MAYILADUTHURAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2031/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Thanaraj Sumathi, Income Tax Officer, No.3/25, North Street, Vs. Ward-1 Moovalur, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai – 609806. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Knyps-1061-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice