D.RAMGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

928/- by rejecting certain expenditure claimed as cost of acquisition and improvement of the capital asset and the claim of agricultural income of Rs.7,43,000/- was ignored by considering the claim as bogus. 4. The assessee had sold the property at Coonoor and offered Capital Gain at Rs.85,069/- and later claiming a loss at Rs.6,644/- by filing

LIFECELL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

capital expenditure disallowed under section 35(2AB) under the provisions of Section 35(l)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. In connection with computation of tax: 23. The CIT(A) failed to note that the Appellant was entitled to credit of tax paid u/s 115JAA of the Act which was not provided

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

928/-. The assessee is noted to have filed rectification application on 28.01.2022 against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 which according to the Ld.AR has not been disposed off till date, which is pending for rectification before the AO. 18. And the AO meanwhile initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s.271AAB(1) dated 28.09.2021 for AY 2020-21 which

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

928/-. The assessee is noted to have filed rectification application on 28.01.2022 against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 which according to the Ld.AR has not been disposed off till date, which is pending for rectification before the AO. 18. And the AO meanwhile initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s.271AAB(1) dated 28.09.2021 for AY 2020-21 which

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

928/-. The\nassessee is noted to have filed rectification application on 28.01.2022\nagainst the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 which according to the\nLd.AR has not been disposed off till date, which is pending for rectification\nbefore the AO.\n18. And the AO meanwhile initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing\nnotice u/s.271AAB(1) dated 28.09.2021 for AY 2020-21 which

ST. JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

928/-. The\nassessee is noted to have filed rectification application on 28.01.2022\nagainst the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 which according to the\nLd.AR has not been disposed off till date, which is pending for rectification\nbefore the AO.\n18. And the AO meanwhile initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing\nnotice u/s.271AAB(1) dated 28.09.2021 for AY 2020-21 which

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

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

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

IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT-CORP CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 14A of the Act r.w.rule 8D of the Rules as per law after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly this issue of the assessee’s appeal is remanded back to the file of the AO. The order of CIT(A) and that of the AO are set aside and matter referred back to the AO. This