GATEWAY OFFICE PARKS PRIOVATE LIMITEDI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CICLE-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2) of section 56 shall be\nthe value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in\nthe following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee,\nnamely:-\n(a) The fair market value of unquoted equity shares =| (A-L)(PE)| x (PV)\nwhere,\nPage - 5 - of 14\nITA No.617/Chny/2024\nA=book

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

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

depreciation and cannot constitute income in the hands of the appellant. Even according to the TP order the profit margin of MIPP was 26.67%. Rs.245 Crores remains unpaid to MIPP. Downward adjustment made for two years only (AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15) and that does not match the share premium of Rs.1973.77 crores (Rs.1847.05 crores in RKM + Rs.126.72 crores

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING P LTD, TIRUPPUR,TAMILNADU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

56 of the Act. On examination of the said provisions, we find the reasoning of the Assessing Officer in treating the sale of MLFPS as business income. In this regard, we shall examine as to whether the sale of scrips of MLFPS would fall under the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. We note that export from

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LTD., TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

56 of the Act. On examination of the said provisions, we find the reasoning of the Assessing Officer in treating the sale of MLFPS as business income. In this regard, we shall examine as to whether the sale of scrips of MLFPS would fall under the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. We note that export from

GEENA GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

56 of the Act. On examination of the said provisions, we find the reasoning of the Assessing Officer in treating the sale of MLFPS as business income. In this regard, we shall examine as to whether the sale of scrips of MLFPS would fall under the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. We note that export from

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

depreciation and cannot constitute income in\nthe hands of the appellant. Even according to the TP order\nthe profit margin of MIPP was 26.67%. Rs.245 Crores\nremains unpaid to MIPP. Downward adjustment made for\ntwo years only (AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15) and that does\nnot match the share premium of Rs.1973.77 crores\n(Rs.1847.05 crores in RKM + Rs.126.72

GATES WEARS,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPPUR

In the result, ITA Nos. 3326/Chny/2019, 326/Chny/2024 &\n768/Chny/2022 are dismissed; ITA No

56 of the Act. On examination of the said provisions, we find\nthe reasoning of the Assessing Officer in treating the sale of MLFPS as\nbusiness income. In this regard, we shall examine as to whether the sale\nof scrips of MLFPS would fall under the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii)\nof the Act. We note that export from

KM KNIT WEAR,TIRUPUR vs. ADIT,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos. 3326/Chny/2019, 326/Chny/2024 &\n768/Chny/2022 are dismissed; ITA No

56 of the Act. On examination of the said provisions, we find\nthe reasoning of the Assessing Officer in treating the sale of MLFPS as\nbusiness income. In this regard, we shall examine as to whether the sale\nof scrips of MLFPS would fall under the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii)\nof the Act. We note that export from

VICTUS DYEINGS ,TIRUPUR vs. ACIT , CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR

56 of the Act. On examination of the said provisions, we find\nthe reasoning of the Assessing Officer in treating the sale of MLFPS as\nbusiness income. In this regard, we shall examine as to whether the sale\nof scrips of MLFPS would fall under the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii)\nof the Act. We note that export from

SAN TEX INC.,TIRUPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPUR

56 of the Act. On examination of the said provisions, we find\nthe reasoning of the Assessing Officer in treating the sale of MLFPS as\nbusiness income. In this regard, we shall examine as to whether the sale\nof scrips of MLFPS would fall under the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii)\nof the Act. We note that export from

M/S . GUPTA & COMPANY ,CHENNAI vs. ADIT , CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.822 & 823/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Gupta & Company, Vs. The Assistant Director Of No. 26 & 27, Morrison First Street, Income Tax, Alandur, Chennai 600 016 Cpc, Bengaluru. Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan:Aaafg0361L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tarun, Advocate For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Both Dated 05.09.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 08.11.2019 Declaring Total

56 as well as Delhi High Court judgement reported in ITA 227/2022. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR dutifully supported the orders of authorities below and also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble 3 I.T.A. Nos.822 & 823/Chny/22 Supreme Court in the case of in the case of M/s. Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. CIT in Civil

M/S . GUPTA & COMPANY ,CHENNAI vs. ADIT , CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.822 & 823/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Gupta & Company, Vs. The Assistant Director Of No. 26 & 27, Morrison First Street, Income Tax, Alandur, Chennai 600 016 Cpc, Bengaluru. Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan:Aaafg0361L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tarun, Advocate For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Both Dated 05.09.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 08.11.2019 Declaring Total

56 as well as Delhi High Court judgement reported in ITA 227/2022. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR dutifully supported the orders of authorities below and also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble 3 I.T.A. Nos.822 & 823/Chny/22 Supreme Court in the case of in the case of M/s. Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. CIT in Civil

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

X 670,98,30,500 "6,18,09561/- of Rule 8D 937,21,17,974 According to clause (i) 0.5% of 670,98,30,500 "3,35,49,152/- of Rule 8D Total "9,53,58,713/- Average assets = (827,38,22,646 + 1047,04,13,303)/2 = 937,21,17,974/- Average investments

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

X 670,98,30,500 "6,18,09561/- of Rule 8D 937,21,17,974 According to clause (i) 0.5% of 670,98,30,500 "3,35,49,152/- of Rule 8D Total "9,53,58,713/- Average assets = (827,38,22,646 + 1047,04,13,303)/2 = 937,21,17,974/- Average investments

ABAN SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.500/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 Aban Singapore Pte Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Room No.8713, Bsnl Building, Tax, 4Th Floor, Bsnl Towers, Intl Tax-1(1), No.16, Greams Road, Chennai. Chennai [Pan: Aaqca2845Q]

56, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, under any law for the time being in force, or] (b) any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of 56contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees, 57[or] 57[(c) any sum referred

RENAULT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

56,11,939 TNMM Renault SAS Sale of trial cars 71,93,334 Renault SAS Purchase of sample 15,96,100 miniature car models Renault Nissan Reimbursement of salaries 3,46,14,038 CUP Global Management and wages paid Renault SAS Reimbursement of F1 race 68,83,300 CUP related cost received Renault BV Interest paid

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

depreciation in respect of the building of coal fire boiler, the reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

depreciation in respect of the building of coal fire boiler, the reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

depreciation in respect of the building of coal fire boiler, the reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason