DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI vs. VENTURE LIGHTING INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

56(2) (viia) of the Act is not attracted thereby fortifying the factual findings rendered by the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order. He also argued that there cannot be any asset accretion in the hands of the company arising out of the buy-back of its own shares since the adjustment would be effected only between its share

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

56. Income from other sources. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. (2)In particular

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. N.RAMACHANDRAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.35/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No.7/Chny/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

viia), 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11U & 11UA. It is found that the argument of the Counsel for the assessee is correct. 6250 shares were allotted by the assessee company to M/s Prince Holdings (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. during the financial year 2009-10. In the case of the assessee company, the only section relevant to the issue of share

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, PUDUCHERRY vs. KALAPET PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes’’

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

gains of the business attributable to such activity. Sub-section (4), inserted by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01.4.2007, provides that the provisions of sec. 80P shall not apply in relation to a ‘co- operative bank’ other than a ‘primary agricultural credit society’ or a ‘primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank’. While the former two terms are to have

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. ADDL. CIT, TRICHY

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

capital expenditure, therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee. 18. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The loss occurred due to non delivery of UTI Master gain 92 bond. The loss of sale of securities was allowed as business loss in the assessee

ACIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

capital expenditure, therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee. 18. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The loss occurred due to non delivery of UTI Master gain 92 bond. The loss of sale of securities was allowed as business loss in the assessee

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. ADDL. CIT, TRICHY

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

capital expenditure, therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee. 18. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The loss occurred due to non delivery of UTI Master gain 92 bond. The loss of sale of securities was allowed as business loss in the assessee

ACIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

capital expenditure, therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee. 18. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The loss occurred due to non delivery of UTI Master gain 92 bond. The loss of sale of securities was allowed as business loss in the assessee

M/S. BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56 the High Court or the Supreme\nCourt.\nExplanation.-In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section\n(2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under\nthe proviso to section 129 and 56a[the period commencing on the date on which\nstay on any proceeding under this section

ACIT (LTU), CHENNAI vs. TAMILNADU PETRO PRODUCTS LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3299/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Tamilnadu Petroproducts Income Tax, V. Limited Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Post Box No. 9, Manali Express Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Highway, Wanaparthy Block, Manali, Chennai – 600 068. No. 121, M.G. Road, [Pan: Aaact-1295-M] Chennai – 600 034. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023

viia) to section 56(2) of the Act. It deals with the consideration received against sale of equity shares below the fair market value or without consideration and for receiving any sum below the fair market value, if it exceeds said consideration such excess amount is subjected to tax. Though, ld. AO has not invoked the said

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

56 the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.-In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and 56a[the period commencing on the date on which stay on any proceeding under this section was granted