M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation as allowed by the Assessing Officer on the said expenditure which has been capitalized would stand reversed. Whether the expenditure incurred on renovation of a building is capital or revenue, is a question of fact. The same has to be decided on the facts of each case. We find that the facts of the case of the assessee

M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation as allowed by the Assessing Officer on the said expenditure which has been capitalized would stand reversed. Whether the expenditure incurred on renovation of a building is capital or revenue, is a question of fact. The same has to be decided on the facts of each case. We find that the facts of the case of the assessee

DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation as allowed by the Assessing Officer on the said expenditure which has been capitalized would stand reversed. Whether the expenditure incurred on renovation of a building is capital or revenue, is a question of fact. The same has to be decided on the facts of each case. We find that the facts of the case of the assessee

DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation as allowed by the Assessing Officer on the said expenditure which has been capitalized would stand reversed. Whether the expenditure incurred on renovation of a building is capital or revenue, is a question of fact. The same has to be decided on the facts of each case. We find that the facts of the case of the assessee

DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation as allowed by the Assessing Officer on the said expenditure which has been capitalized would stand reversed. Whether the expenditure incurred on renovation of a building is capital or revenue, is a question of fact. The same has to be decided on the facts of each case. We find that the facts of the case of the assessee

DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation as allowed by the Assessing Officer on the said expenditure which has been capitalized would stand reversed. Whether the expenditure incurred on renovation of a building is capital or revenue, is a question of fact. The same has to be decided on the facts of each case. We find that the facts of the case of the assessee

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S, SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1251/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle-6(1) Chennai-600 004. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1298/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Shriram City Union Finance Tax, Ltd. Corporate Circle-6(1) Mookambika Complex, Chennai-34. No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation on said expenditure is infructuous and hence, not maintainable. The fact remains unchanged. The assessee failed to bring on record the learned CIT(A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold findings of the learned CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee. 6. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground No.III

SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1251/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle-6(1) Chennai-600 004. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1298/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Shriram City Union Finance Tax, Ltd. Corporate Circle-6(1) Mookambika Complex, Chennai-34. No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation on said expenditure is infructuous and hence, not maintainable. The fact remains unchanged. The assessee failed to bring on record the learned CIT(A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold findings of the learned CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee. 6. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground No.III

M/S. DISHNET WIRELESS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (4),, CHENNAI

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

depreciation\namortization under section 32 of the Act.\n8. Disallowance of year - end provisions\n8. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.\nCIT(A) as well as Ld. AO has erred in not allowing INR 1,10,11,48,082\nclaimed by the Appellant towards year end provisions.\n8. 2. That

M/S. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is disposed off

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:1839/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008 - 2009 M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Limited, C/O Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate, No.384 (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai – 600 086. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaaci 0842D …………… Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle – Ii(1), (Now Dcit, Company Circle – 2(1), ""थ"/Respondent Chennai – 600 034. ……………

depreciation. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and vide order, dated 31.12.2010, assessment was framed on the Appellant under Section 143(3) of the Act at income of INR 27,47,09,434/- after making the following additions/disallowances: S.No. Particulars of additions Amount (i) Payment made to foreign agencies 14,39,555 disallowed u/s.40

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MARUTI TRANSPORTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.3154/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Maruti Transports Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No. 151, Sri Ranga, Mambalam High Corporate Circle 4(1), Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaecm1295N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.B. Muralidharan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Of The Department Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 29.08.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13, Wherein, The Revenue Has Raised Three Effective Grounds, Viz., (I) Deleting The Disallowance Towards Payment Of Commission, (Ii) Deleting The Disallowance Towards Loading & Unloading Charges & (Iii) Deleting The Disallowance Towards Repairs & Maintenance Expenses.

194H of the Act. In view of the above, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance made on this account and hence, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. The next ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue is with regard to disallowance of loading and unloading charges to the tune

SHRI NATARAJAN SOMASUNDARAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, E-105, Periyar Vegetable Market, Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092. Chennai. [Pan:Aajps6303B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 443 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In The Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay Of 450 Days By Imposing Cost

depreciation, but, having no evidence on record, we restrict 50% at ₹.1,67,660/- of total disallowance of ₹.3,35,320/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustain balance 50% at ₹.1,67,660/-. Thus, ground Nos. 2 & 3 are partly allowed. 5 I.T.A. No.788/Chny/25 9. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 raised by the assessee in challenging the action

DEPUTY COMMISSINOER OF INCOME TAX,, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

depreciation @50% on\nmotor vehicles acquired between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009; and\ndismiss this ground of Revenue.\n9.\nIssue 6:Disallowance of payment made to Motor vehicle\ndealer\n Assessment Year\nAppeal by\nGround No.\nAY 2012-13\nDepartment (ITA No.470/2024) Ground no.7\n9.1 Brief facts as noted by the AO for AY 2012-13 are that the assessee\nhad made

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

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

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

depreciation @50% on motor vehicles acquired between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009; and dismiss this ground of Revenue. 9. Issue 6:Disallowance of payment made to Motor vehicle dealer Assessment Year Appeal by Ground No. AY 2012-13 Department (ITA No.470/ 2024) Ground no.7 9.1 Brief facts as noted by the AO for AY 2012-13 are that the assessee had made

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

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

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

depreciation @50% on motor vehicles acquired between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009; and dismiss this ground of Revenue. 9. Issue 6:Disallowance of payment made to Motor vehicle dealer Assessment Year Appeal by Ground No. AY 2012-13 Department (ITA No.470/ 2024) Ground no.7 9.1 Brief facts as noted by the AO for AY 2012-13 are that the assessee had made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

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

depreciation @50% on motor vehicles acquired between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009; and dismiss this ground of Revenue. 9. Issue 6:Disallowance of payment made to Motor vehicle dealer Assessment Year Appeal by Ground No. AY 2012-13 Department (ITA No.470/ 2024) Ground no.7 9.1 Brief facts as noted by the AO for AY 2012-13 are that the assessee had made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

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

depreciation @50% on motor vehicles acquired between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009; and dismiss this ground of Revenue. 9. Issue 6:Disallowance of payment made to Motor vehicle dealer Assessment Year Appeal by Ground No. AY 2012-13 Department (ITA No.470/ 2024) Ground no.7 9.1 Brief facts as noted by the AO for AY 2012-13 are that the assessee had made

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

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

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

depreciation @50% on motor vehicles acquired between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009; and dismiss this ground of Revenue. 9. Issue 6:Disallowance of payment made to Motor vehicle dealer Assessment Year Appeal by Ground No. AY 2012-13 Department (ITA No.470/ 2024) Ground no.7 9.1 Brief facts as noted by the AO for AY 2012-13 are that the assessee had made