M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

capital gain and hence we dismiss corresponding grounds of the appeal of the assessee. 5.1 On the claim of deduction u/s 80G, the fact remains that during the assessment proceedings itself, the assessee has produced donation receipts for Rs.18,000/- & Rs.36,000/- paid to Amar Seva Sangam, which was eligible for deduction U/s.80G as per order dated

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

capital gain and hence we dismiss corresponding grounds of the appeal of the assessee. 5.1 On the claim of deduction u/s 80G, the fact remains that during the assessment proceedings itself, the assessee has produced donation receipts for Rs.18,000/- & Rs.36,000/- paid to Amar Seva Sangam, which was eligible for deduction U/s.80G as per order dated

INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

80G(5)(vi) as well as 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed the application in Form No. 10A for registration under section 12AA of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 3006 & 3007/Chny/18 Act on 02.03.2017. The ld. CIT(E), vide his order

INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

80G(5)(vi) as well as 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed the application in Form No. 10A for registration under section 12AA of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 3006 & 3007/Chny/18 Act on 02.03.2017. The ld. CIT(E), vide his order

ITO, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, appeal of Revenue in 345/2013 is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G.Pavan Kumar

iii) From January 2008 onwards all the loan activities of microfinance activities are carried out only in the new company. iv) The Grama Vidiyal Trust is doing the charitable and non microfinance activities from January 2008 onwards. v) Before January 2008 Grama Vidiyal Trust has availed loan from various banking and financial institutions for their microfinance activities. vi) The Grama

ACIT, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, appeal of Revenue in 345/2013 is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G.Pavan Kumar

iii) From January 2008 onwards all the loan activities of microfinance activities are carried out only in the new company. iv) The Grama Vidiyal Trust is doing the charitable and non microfinance activities from January 2008 onwards. v) Before January 2008 Grama Vidiyal Trust has availed loan from various banking and financial institutions for their microfinance activities. vi) The Grama

ACIT, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, appeal of Revenue in 345/2013 is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G.Pavan Kumar

iii) From January 2008 onwards all the loan activities of microfinance activities are carried out only in the new company. iv) The Grama Vidiyal Trust is doing the charitable and non microfinance activities from January 2008 onwards. v) Before January 2008 Grama Vidiyal Trust has availed loan from various banking and financial institutions for their microfinance activities. vi) The Grama

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-4,, CHENNAI

iii) High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT v. Krishna\nCapbox (P.) Ltd in ITA. No 01 of 2015 dated 23 February\n2015. (Para 9 to 14 Page no. 16 of Case law Paperbook 2)\nIn light of the above, the Assessee submits that if a query is raised\nduring the assessment proceedings and if the Assessee responds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

iii) marketing assets. Out of the three, only the manufacturing assets was owned by the said Undertaking, i.e. Baddi Unit. Hence the profit only to the extent of the "manufacturing profit" could be said to be derived from the Baddi Undertaking, which according to AO, was eligible for deduction u/s.80-IC of IT Act......... 5.24 After taking cognizance of the above

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) LTU - II, CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1402/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.,\nNo.1, Sardar Patel Road,\nGuindy, Chennai-600 032.\n[PAN: AAAСА 4651 L]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8(1),\nLTU-II,\nChennai.\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1663/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8,\nChennai.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nM/s. Ashok Leyl

iii)\nmarketing assets. Out of the three, only the manufacturing assets\nwas owned by the said Undertaking, i.e. Baddi Unit. Hence the\nprofit only to the extent of the \"manufacturing profit\" could be said\nto be derived from the Baddi Undertaking, which according to AO,\nwas eligible for deduction u/s.80-IC of IT Act.........\n5.24 After taking cognizance of the above

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Capital/ Reserves/Loan/\nCurrent Liabilities\nLiabilities (Credit)\nImmoveable Property/ Loans &\nAdvances/ Shares/ Bank Balance\n21. The above view of ours get bolstered from reading of Explanation 2\nappended to the fourth proviso, which defines 'asset', for the purpose of\nfourth proviso to Section 153A, to include i) immovable property, ii)\nshares and securities iii) loans and advances & iv) Deposit in bank

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Capital/ Reserves/Loan/\nCurrent Liabilities\nLiabilities (Credit)\nImmoveable Property/ Loans &\nAdvances/ Shares/ Bank Balance\n21. The above view of ours get bolstered from reading of Explanation 2\nappended to the fourth proviso, which defines 'asset', for the purpose of\nfourth proviso to Section 153A, to include i) immovable property, ii)\nshares and securities iii) loans and advances & iv) Deposit in bank