DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 36(1)(viii). 3.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in not relying on decision of Tribunal applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in law and on facts in disallowing the depreciation on investments which are stock-in-trade of the bank amounting

KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 36(1)(viii). 3.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in not relying on decision of Tribunal applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in law and on facts in disallowing the depreciation on investments which are stock-in-trade of the bank amounting

KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 36(1)(viii). 3.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in not relying on decision of Tribunal applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in law and on facts in disallowing the depreciation on investments which are stock-in-trade of the bank amounting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

56(1) on the reason\nthat that the share premium of Rs.240 was huge and\ninflated. In other words, the AO has concluded that the fair\nvalue of the share was only Rs.10 without any valuation by\nhim and that he has come to the conclusion that the share\npremium of Rs.240 was excessive. The issue of shares has\nbeen

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

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

1) of the Act. Since, the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view for which the PCIT may not agree, however, this may not be a reason for the PCIT to assume jurisdiction to revise assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 17. In view of this matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case

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

1) of the Act. Since, the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view for which the PCIT may not agree, however, this may not be a reason for the PCIT to assume jurisdiction to revise assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 17. In view of this matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section

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

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", "56

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. AATHMIKA HOLDINGS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

1) For the purposes of section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (c) valuation of shares and securities,— b) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-II,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

56,443 Non Statutory reserve released :Rs. 47,44,730 Total : Rs.3,47,01, 173 The release of above amounts during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2008-09 related to reserves created in earlier years. Prior to assessment year 2008-09 i.e. upto assessment year 2007-08 the bank was entitled to claim deduction under Section

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

56,443 Non Statutory reserve released :Rs. 47,44,730 Total : Rs.3,47,01, 173 The release of above amounts during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2008-09 related to reserves created in earlier years. Prior to assessment year 2008-09 i.e. upto assessment year 2007-08 the bank was entitled to claim deduction under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, CUDDALLORE vs. M/S VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

56,443 Non Statutory reserve released :Rs. 47,44,730 Total : Rs.3,47,01, 173 The release of above amounts during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2008-09 related to reserves created in earlier years. Prior to assessment year 2008-09 i.e. upto assessment year 2007-08 the bank was entitled to claim deduction under Section

THE CUDDALORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

56,443 Non Statutory reserve released :Rs. 47,44,730 Total : Rs.3,47,01, 173 The release of above amounts during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2008-09 related to reserves created in earlier years. Prior to assessment year 2008-09 i.e. upto assessment year 2007-08 the bank was entitled to claim deduction under Section

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERTATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

56,443 Non Statutory reserve released :Rs. 47,44,730 Total : Rs.3,47,01, 173 The release of above amounts during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2008-09 related to reserves created in earlier years. Prior to assessment year 2008-09 i.e. upto assessment year 2007-08 the bank was entitled to claim deduction under Section

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPRUAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

56,443 Non Statutory reserve released :Rs. 47,44,730 Total : Rs.3,47,01, 173 The release of above amounts during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2008-09 related to reserves created in earlier years. Prior to assessment year 2008-09 i.e. upto assessment year 2007-08 the bank was entitled to claim deduction under Section

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

56,443 Non Statutory reserve released :Rs. 47,44,730 Total : Rs.3,47,01, 173 The release of above amounts during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2008-09 related to reserves created in earlier years. Prior to assessment year 2008-09 i.e. upto assessment year 2007-08 the bank was entitled to claim deduction under Section

DCIT LTPU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD, CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 147 of the Act. Regarding the other grounds raised for reopening, depreciation claimed for the unit at Kolkatta Bantala (SEZ), the petitioner has stated that the said issue was also elaborately considered. 16. Regarding the grounds raised for 60% dis-allowance instead of 40% as claimed by the petitioner-Assessee, the judgment in the case of Deputy Commissioner