TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

capital asset under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, there must be a “contract” which can be enforced in law under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act A reading of Section 1 7(IA) and Section 49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

2(42C) was being alleged to have been violated, then the AO ought to have computed itemized capital gains for each capital asset under Section 45 of the Act, and under no circumstance could the gains ITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 45 :: computed in accordance with Section 50B, be assessed as ‘business income

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.269/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Cognizant Technology- The Asst. Commissioner- Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, 5/535, Okkiam, Thoriapakkam, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 096. [Pan:Aaacd 3312 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Counsel For Shri N.V. Balaji, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Shankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor – General Of India For Shri A.P.Srinivas, Sr. Standing Counsel : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.07.2023 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023

46. 14. The Ld.Sr.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that provisions of Sec.2(22)(d) of the Act, does not applicable in the present case, because, the deeming fiction provided therein is triggered when payment is made to the shareholders upon reduction of share capital. In the instant case, the company had under the scheme made an offer to purchase

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

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

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

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

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

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

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule

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

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

46. On the contrary, Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 44 of the Act specifically says that the provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable to the insurance companies. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, the income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in the First Schedule