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

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

43B(d) and (e) of the Act.\n5. Disallowance in respect of mark to market losses on current\ninvestments – Rs 13,96,48,468/-\n5.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the Appellant\nwith respect to mark to market losses on current investments being\nconsidered as allowable business expenditure.\n5.2 The learned CIT(A) erred

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

capital gains arising therefrom are exempt under specific provisions of section 10(38) of the Act. The Tribunal further placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of New India assurance company Limited reported in 254 taxman 238 [Bombay] and letter dated 21.02.2006 issued by the CBDT to IRDA, further, taking into account

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

capital gains arising therefrom are exempt under\nspecific provisions of section 10(38) of the Act. The Tribunal further\nplacing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the\ncase of New India assurance company Limited reported in 254 taxman\n238 [Bombay] and letter dated 21.02.2006 issued by the CBDT to IRDA,\nfurther, taking into account

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

capital gains arising therefrom are exempt under\nspecific provisions of section 10(38) of the Act. The Tribunal further\nplacing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the\ncase of New India assurance company Limited reported in 254 taxman\n238 [Bombay] and letter dated 21.02.2006 issued by the CBDT to IRDA,\nfurther, taking into account

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

capital gains arising therefrom are exempt under\nspecific provisions of section 10(38) of the Act. The Tribunal further\nplacing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the\ncase of New India assurance company Limited reported in 254 taxman\n238 [Bombay] and letter dated 21.02.2006 issued by the CBDT to IRDA,\nfurther, taking into account

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

capital gains arising therefrom are exempt under\nspecific provisions of section 10(38) of the Act. The Tribunal further\nplacing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the\ncase of New India assurance company Limited reported in 254 taxman\n238 [Bombay] and letter dated 21.02.2006 issued by the CBDT to IRDA,\nfurther, taking into account

THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

gains of any business or profession which\nwas carried on by the assessee at any time during the year'. This being\nthe case, the logical conclusion that would follow would be that after\namendment of the definition of 'income, there was no separate\nrequirement of bringing corresponding amendment to Sec.28 since\nclause (i) was wide enough or in fact

RENAULT NISSAN AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CORPOATE CIRCLE-5(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.206/Chny/2018 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Renault Nissan Automotive India Dcit Private Limited Company Circle-V(3), बनाम Plot No.1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai. / Vs. Oragadam, Mattur Post, Sriperumbudur-602 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcr-7965-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V.Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit) -Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

43B; (iv) Addition on account of Short-Term Capital Gains. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and placed on record issue-wise chart. Reliance has been placed on various judicial decisions. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, supported the findings given by lower authorities. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would

THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2663/Chny/2025 धििाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2021-22

43B of the Act, the CIT(A) gave direction to the A.O to collect evidence as to whether the assessee has paid the interest to bank within the due date to the tune of Rs.8,46,92,528/- and with regard to gratuity amounting to Rs.20,45,39,511/-, the CIT(A) gave a direction to the A.O to check

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

section 43B relating to loans and advances from a scheduled bank is also not applicable in the instant ITA No.877, 878/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 :- 20 -: case. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, neither was the Assessing Officer justified in disallowing the deduction claimed for the provision made in respect of interest accrued but not due on the deep discount bonds

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

section 43B relating to loans and advances from a scheduled bank is also not applicable in the instant ITA No.877, 878/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 :- 20 -: case. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, neither was the Assessing Officer justified in disallowing the deduction claimed for the provision made in respect of interest accrued but not due on the deep discount bonds

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP CIRCLE 8, CHENNAI

capital gains of Rs.2,70,40,910/- as per the normal provisions of the Act, which was selected for scrutiny, and the AO having issued statutory notices u/s.143(2), u/s.142(1) etc., called for details/answers to the queries, which were replied with supporting material, and the assessment was completed on 28.12.2011; and subsequently revised u/s.154

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

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

43B of the Act in the computation of taxable total income. 14. The Ld.AR argued that the said submission was supported by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India P. Ltd. [TCA Nos.585 & 586 of 2015 dated 24.07.2015], which ratio was binding upon the assessee as well as the Jurisdictional

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

43B in computing the profits and gains\nof a business shall be added back\".\nTherefore, such reserve based on assumptions without specifying the\nrequirement of crystallization of the liability cannot be allowed as a\nITA No.1279 & 1338/Chny/2024 (AY 2008-09)\nITA No.1280/Chny/2024 (AY 2009-10)\nITA Nos.1281, 1488 & 1489/Chny/2024 (AY 2011-12)\nM/s. Cholamandalam MS -\nGeneral Insurance

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP CIRCLE 8, CHENNAI

43B in computing the profits and gains\nof a business shall be added back\".\nTherefore, such reserve based on assumptions without specifying the\nrequirement of crystallization of the liability cannot be allowed as a\ndeduction against the profits of the year and therefore the amount of\nRs.8,78,92,000 is to be disallowed.\n2.\nIt is seen from

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital from Corporation Bank (Not disallowed u/s 43B in respective years) written back on account of OTS - Rs.4, 19,11,786 was offered as income and a sum of Rs.56,00,61,915, which included the bad debts written off Rs.55,92,38,563 was claimed as deduction and finally the loss was arrived at Rs.49

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital from Corporation Bank (Not disallowed u/s 43B in respective years) written back on account of OTS - Rs.4, 19,11,786 was offered as income and a sum of Rs.56,00,61,915, which included the bad debts written off Rs.55,92,38,563 was claimed as deduction and finally the loss was arrived at Rs.49

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital from Corporation Bank (Not disallowed u/s 43B in respective years) written back on account of OTS - Rs.4, 19,11,786 was offered as income and a sum of Rs.56,00,61,915, which included the bad debts written off Rs.55,92,38,563 was claimed as deduction and finally the loss was arrived at Rs.49

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIAN ADDITIVES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.9, 10 & 11/Chny/2018 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

capital expenditure. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of :- 4 -: Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. The brief facts of the case extracted from IT(TP)A No.9/Chny/2018