ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

depreciation on goodwill, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Thus, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the addition made by the Assessing Officer stands deleted for all the assessment years under consideration. ITA Nos.2670 to 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 18. The next ground raised by the assessee in ground Nos. 3.1 to 3.6 for the assessment year

THE MUSIC ACADEMY MADRAS,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1098/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Music Academy Madras, The Deputy Director Of Income Tax No.168 (Old No.306), Ttk Road, V. (Exemptions), Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Chennai - 600 034 . Pan : Aaatt 0256 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation in respect of asset which was used as tool for carrying out charitable object of the institution. When the asset was used as tool for carrying out the object of the charitable institution, such activity cannot be construed as a business or profession of the assessee. Therefore, Section 32 of the Act is not applicable in this case

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

depreciation was set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "32", "43(1)", "47", "170", "40(a)(i)", "195

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

195(1) which in clear terms lays down that tax at source is deductible only from "sums chargeable" under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, i.e., chargeable under sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Income-tax Act.” 8.5 In view of the above decision (supra), the contention raised by the Ld. CIT, DR fails. For the reasons

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

Section\n35(2AB) to claim weighted deduction stood fulfilled. Once the facility is\napproved and the auditor certifies the expenditure incurred therein, then\nsuch amount qualifies for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB), irrespective\nwhether the same is approved by DSIR or not. It is well settled in the law,\nas it stood during the year, that the approval from DSIR

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

sections": [ "250", "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "32", "43(1)", "47", "170", "AS-14", "56(2)(viib)", "40(a)(i)", "195" ], "issues": "1. Whether goodwill arising from amalgamation is eligible for depreciation

M/S. RAJA MUTHIAH CHETTIAR CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

depreciation in respect of asset which was used as tool for carrying out charitable object of the institution. When the asset was used as tool for carrying out the object of the charitable institution, such 15 I.T.A. No.2129/Mds/2016 activity cannot be construed as a business or profession of the assessee. Therefore, Section 32 of the Act is not applicable

SOUTHER INDIA MILLS ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

depreciation in respect of asset which was used as tool for carrying out charitable object of the institution. When the asset was used as tool for carrying out the object of the charitable institution, such activity cannot be construed as a business or profession of the assessee. Therefore, Section 32 of the Act is not applicable in this case

M/S. SAKTHI FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

depreciation in respect of asset which was used as tool for carrying out charitable object of the institution. When the asset was used as tool for carrying out the object of the charitable institution, such activity cannot be construed as a business or profession of the assessee. Therefore, Section 32 of the Act is not applicable in this case

M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

Section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as stated earlier, there would be no obligation on the part of the assessee, being a payer, to deduct tax at source and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this ground also.” 20. Insofar as case laws relied upon by the learned

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

Section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as stated earlier, there would be no obligation on the part of the assessee, being a payer, to deduct tax at source and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this ground also.” 20. Insofar as case laws relied upon by the learned

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

Section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as stated earlier, there would be no obligation on the part of the assessee, being a payer, to deduct tax at source and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this ground also.” 20. Insofar as case laws relied upon by the learned

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

Section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as stated earlier, there would be no obligation on the part of the assessee, being a payer, to deduct tax at source and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this ground also.” 20. Insofar as case laws relied upon by the learned

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

Section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as stated earlier, there would be no obligation on the part of the assessee, being a payer, to deduct tax at source and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this ground also.” 20. Insofar as case laws relied upon by the learned

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

Section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as stated earlier, there would be no obligation on the part of the assessee, being a payer, to deduct tax at source and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this ground also.” 20. Insofar as case laws relied upon by the learned

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

Section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as stated earlier, there would be no obligation on the part of the assessee, being a payer, to deduct tax at source and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this ground also.” 20. Insofar as case laws relied upon by the learned

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, PARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

Section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as stated earlier, there would be no obligation on the part of the assessee, being a payer, to deduct tax at source and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this ground also.” 20. Insofar as case laws relied upon by the learned

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

Section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as stated earlier, there would be no obligation on the part of the assessee, being a payer, to deduct tax at source and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this ground also.” 20. Insofar as case laws relied upon by the learned

ACIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

Section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as stated earlier, there would be no obligation on the part of the assessee, being a payer, to deduct tax at source and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this ground also.” 20. Insofar as case laws relied upon by the learned