INDIA PISTONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

201 3-TIOL-796-ITAT- MAD, 2.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Hon’ble Chennai ITAT in the case of Computer Age Management services (p) Ltd in ITA Nos. 1236, 1240, 1259,1261/2014 dt 28.11.2014 held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D can be made only by taking into consideration the investments which

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIA PISTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

201 3-TIOL-796-ITAT- MAD, 2.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Hon’ble Chennai ITAT in the case of Computer Age Management services (p) Ltd in ITA Nos. 1236, 1240, 1259,1261/2014 dt 28.11.2014 held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D can be made only by taking into consideration the investments which

INDIA PISTONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

201 3-TIOL-796-ITAT- MAD, 2.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Hon’ble Chennai ITAT in the case of Computer Age Management services (p) Ltd in ITA Nos. 1236, 1240, 1259,1261/2014 dt 28.11.2014 held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D can be made only by taking into consideration the investments which

M/S. TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-3

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

201 7-18 and adjusted to the\nextent of income determined. However, after scrutiny/appeal\nproceedings, the available unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2015-16 is\nonly Rs.10,75,26, 052/- and for AY 2017-18 is Rs.4,44,27,377/- only.\nHence, the AO has allowed excess set off of unabsorbed depreciation\nand also allowed excess amount of unabsorbed depreciation

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

depreciation on the same. The appellant prays that the Honorable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal may delete the above additions and render justice. 2. Besides the above common grounds, for the assessment year 2009- 10, the assessee has also raised following grounds for adjudication: 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 “3. Ground 2 – Addition on account of capital gains: The appellant

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

depreciation on the same. The appellant prays that the Honorable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal may delete the above additions and render justice. 2. Besides the above common grounds, for the assessment year 2009- 10, the assessee has also raised following grounds for adjudication: 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 “3. Ground 2 – Addition on account of capital gains: The appellant

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

depreciation on the same. The appellant prays that the Honorable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal may delete the above additions and render justice. 2. Besides the above common grounds, for the assessment year 2009- 10, the assessee has also raised following grounds for adjudication: 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 “3. Ground 2 – Addition on account of capital gains: The appellant

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

depreciation on the same. The appellant prays that the Honorable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal may delete the above additions and render justice. 2. Besides the above common grounds, for the assessment year 2009- 10, the assessee has also raised following grounds for adjudication: 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 “3. Ground 2 – Addition on account of capital gains: The appellant

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. AREVA T & D INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 14. In the decision in the case of Asianet Communications Ltd. Vs. CIT, Chennai [reported in (2018) 257 Taxman 473], a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, had considered the same issue as to, where the non compete fee paid by the assessee

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. AREVA T & D INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 14. In the decision in the case of Asianet Communications Ltd. Vs. CIT, Chennai [reported in (2018) 257 Taxman 473], a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, had considered the same issue as to, where the non compete fee paid by the assessee

ALSTOM T & D INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 14. In the decision in the case of Asianet Communications Ltd. Vs. CIT, Chennai [reported in (2018) 257 Taxman 473], a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, had considered the same issue as to, where the non compete fee paid by the assessee

ALSTOM T & D INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 14. In the decision in the case of Asianet Communications Ltd. Vs. CIT, Chennai [reported in (2018) 257 Taxman 473], a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, had considered the same issue as to, where the non compete fee paid by the assessee

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case