DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

section 145 of the act confers upon the Ld. AO exclusive powers or rather duty to make computation of income in a manner he deems appropriate for determination of correct profit and gains. 10.1 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that it is offering the income

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

section 145 of the act confers upon the Ld. AO exclusive powers or rather duty to make computation of income in a manner he deems appropriate for determination of correct profit and gains. 10.1 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that it is offering the income

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP CIRCLE 8, CHENNAI

156), the Ld. Assessing Officer allowed depreciation @ 25%. On appeal, the learned CIT relying on the decision in the case of Amway India Enterprises Vs. DCIT held that the assessee would be entitled for depreciation @ 60% since \"computer software\" falls in the category of \"plant\". On perusing the facts of the case, we find the decision of learned

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

depreciation. 10 Whether the provisions of Sec150(1) are applicable. If the reply is in he affirmative the : No. relevant facts may be stated against item No.11 and may also be brought out that the provisions of section 150(1) would not stand in the way for initiating 11 Assessing Officer’s remark : In the case at sl.No

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

depreciation. 10 Whether the provisions of Sec150(1) are applicable. If the reply is in he affirmative the : No. relevant facts may be stated against item No.11 and may also be brought out that the provisions of section 150(1) would not stand in the way for initiating 11 Assessing Officer’s remark : In the case at sl.No

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

depreciation. 10 Whether the provisions of Sec150(1) are applicable. If the reply is in he affirmative the : No. relevant facts may be stated against item No.11 and may also be brought out that the provisions of section 150(1) would not stand in the way for initiating 11 Assessing Officer’s remark : In the case at sl.No

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

depreciation. 10 Whether the provisions of Sec150(1) are applicable. If the reply is in he affirmative the : No. relevant facts may be stated against item No.11 and may also be brought out that the provisions of section 150(1) would not stand in the way for initiating 11 Assessing Officer’s remark : In the case at sl.No

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

depreciation. 10 Whether the provisions of Sec150(1) are applicable. If the reply is in he affirmative the : No. relevant facts may be stated against item No.11 and may also be brought out that the provisions of section 150(1) would not stand in the way for initiating 11 Assessing Officer’s remark : In the case at sl.No

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

depreciation. 10 Whether the provisions of Sec150(1) are applicable. If the reply is in he affirmative the : No. relevant facts may be stated against item No.11 and may also be brought out that the provisions of section 150(1) would not stand in the way for initiating 11 Assessing Officer’s remark : In the case at sl.No

ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATES LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT,CORP. CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAIQ

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

ITO, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMILNADU GOLF FEDERATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.155, 156 & 157/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13

156 & 157/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer M/s Tamil Nadu Golf Federation, (Exemptions), Ward-3, v. No.334, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 034. Nandanam, Chennai - 600 015. PAN : AAATT 2341 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent & Cross-objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT

ITO, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMILNADU GOLF FEDERATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.155, 156 & 157/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13

156 & 157/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer M/s Tamil Nadu Golf Federation, (Exemptions), Ward-3, v. No.334, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 034. Nandanam, Chennai - 600 015. PAN : AAATT 2341 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent & Cross-objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT

ITO, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMILNADU GOLF FEDERATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.155, 156 & 157/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13

156 & 157/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer M/s Tamil Nadu Golf Federation, (Exemptions), Ward-3, v. No.334, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 034. Nandanam, Chennai - 600 015. PAN : AAATT 2341 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent & Cross-objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The Dcit, 98-A, 7Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacs 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Depreciation 3423 3012 2739 Less : Dividend Paid 2213 2096 2037 Cash flow after Tax 8158 8101 6895 Upon perusal, it could be seen that the assessee has sufficient cash generation to advance loans. 11. As far as the revenue’s reliance on the case law of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT V/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (156 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

156), the Ld. Assessing Officer allowed\ndepreciation @ 25%. On appeal, the learned CIT relying on the decision in the\ncase of Amway India Enterprises Vs. DCIT held that the assessee would be\nentitled for depreciation @ 60% since \"computer software\" falls in the category\nof \"plant\". On perusing the facts of the case, we find the decision of learned\nCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 148 of the Act and pursuant to it, the assessee filed a letter dated 08.05.2024 and digitally signed original return of income for AY 2009-10 u/s.148 of the Act electronically through online and again requested for reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. According to Ld.AR, then also the AO didn’t give copy of the reasons recorded

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

section\n145 of the act confers upon the Ld. AO exclusive powers or rather duty to\nmake computation of income in a manner he deems appropriate for\ndetermination of correct profit and gains.\n10.1 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available\non records. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that it is offering\nthe income

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

section\n145 of the act confers upon the Ld. AO exclusive powers or rather duty to\nmake computation of income in a manner he deems appropriate for\ndetermination of correct profit and gains.\n10.1 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available\non records. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that it is offering\nthe income