ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

1)(viii) of the Act, on the ground that, as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, prescribed method has been provided for computing deduction for eligible profit and as per said section, an amount not exceeding 20% of profit derived from eligible business computed under the head ‘profit and :-60-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

1)(viii) of the Act, on the ground that, as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, prescribed method has been provided for computing deduction for eligible profit and as per said section, an amount not exceeding 20% of profit derived from eligible business computed under the head ‘profit and :-60-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

1)(viii) of the Act, on the ground that, as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, prescribed method has been provided for computing deduction for eligible profit and as per said section, an amount not exceeding 20% of profit derived from eligible business computed under the head ‘profit and :-60-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

1)(viii) of the Act, on the ground that, as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, prescribed method has been provided for computing deduction for eligible profit and as per said section, an amount not exceeding 20% of profit derived from eligible business computed under the head ‘profit and :-60-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

1)(viii) of the Act, on the ground that, as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, prescribed method has been provided for computing deduction for eligible profit and as per said section, an amount not exceeding 20% of profit derived from eligible business computed under the head ‘profit and :-60-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019

JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-2, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. ITA. No. 620/Chny/2020 for AY 2017-18: 3. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y.2017-18 are reproduced as under: 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made

M/S. KARUR VYSYA BANK,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1),, TRICHY

condonation of\nwhich has been sought by Ld. AR and the Id.DR respectively, on the\nground that the delay occurred due to lockdown situation arising out\nof Covid-19 Pandemic and the period of delay falls in the exclusion\nperiod commencing from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Keeping in\nview the adverse situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic, we\ncondone

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

condonation of delay in filing the original return u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act and during the process of examining, the correctness of the claim to facilitate the report by the AO, it came to light that while the claim of deduction u/s.54EC was found to be in order, the claim of deduction u/s.54F to the tune of ITA No.567

GRAND ARK LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the\nstatistical purposes

delay is condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is\nadmitted for adjudication.\n3. The assessee, Grand Ark Logistics Private Limited, a company\nengaged in the business of transporting goods through road, filed its\nreturn of income for AY 2021-22 on 02.08.2022, declaring a total\nincome of Rs.1,08,61,070/-. The department issued notices u/s.142\nof the Act and in response

G2K TRUST,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3113 & 3114/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 G2K Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5, Abila Avenue, Santosh Garden, Ward 2(1), Kulumani Main Road, Woraiyur, Tiruchirappalli. Trichy 620 102. [Pan: Aactg4763G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. K. Abhirame, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 04.07.2025 & 15.07.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

condoning the delay of 2235 days in filing the appeal and adjudicate the issue on merits. 6. We note that, at the outset, the CPC Bengaluru passed intimation under section 143(1

G2K TRUST,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3113 & 3114/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 G2K Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5, Abila Avenue, Santosh Garden, Ward 2(1), Kulumani Main Road, Woraiyur, Tiruchirappalli. Trichy 620 102. [Pan: Aactg4763G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. K. Abhirame, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 04.07.2025 & 15.07.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

condoning the delay of 2235 days in filing the appeal and adjudicate the issue on merits. 6. We note that, at the outset, the CPC Bengaluru passed intimation under section 143(1

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

condoned the delay in filing of appeals and cross-objections due to reasonable cause. On the issue of depreciation on goodwill, the Tribunal held that goodwill arising from amalgamation is an eligible intangible asset for depreciation, irrespective of whether it was recorded in the books or the accounting method used (purchase vs. pooling of interest). The Tribunal also addressed transfer

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

6 to 9 years. The same has led Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss all the appeals for want of condonation of delay. 5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIORI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

6 to 9 years. The same has led Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss all the appeals for want of condonation of delay. 5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, KURUJIPADI ,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

6 to 9 years. The same has led Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss all the appeals for want of condonation of delay. 5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

6 to 9 years. The same has led Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss all the appeals for want of condonation of delay. 5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been

TAMIL NADU GRAMA BANK SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

6 to 9 years. The same has led Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss all the appeals for want of condonation of delay. 5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

6 to 9 years. The same has led Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss all the appeals for want of condonation of delay. 5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK,SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

6 to 9 years. The same has led Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss all the appeals for want of condonation of delay. 5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been