TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 11 of the Act. Referring to the order of the assessment for assessment year 2008-09, Ld. 7 I.T.A. Nos.1535 to 1537/Mds/14 representative pointed out that the assessee claimed depreciation in respect of the capital asset to the extent of `1,61,75,931/-. However, in the revised return, the assessee claimed depreciation to the extent

M.ARUNACHALAM AND COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S M. Arunachalam & Company, The Joint / Assistant No.117/79, Lloyds Road, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Business Range Viii, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaafm 6851 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation on the very same asset is not justified. 10. Now coming to assessment year 2010-11 in I.T.A. No.1353/Mds/2015, the first issue arises for consideration is with regard to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Shri J. Chandrasekaran, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee made payment to sub- contractors

M.ARUNACHALAM AND COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S M. Arunachalam & Company, The Joint / Assistant No.117/79, Lloyds Road, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Business Range Viii, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaafm 6851 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation on the very same asset is not justified. 10. Now coming to assessment year 2010-11 in I.T.A. No.1353/Mds/2015, the first issue arises for consideration is with regard to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Shri J. Chandrasekaran, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee made payment to sub- contractors

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. IDFC LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

section 43B relating to loans and advances from a scheduled bank is also not applicable in the instant ITA No.877, 878/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 :- 20 -: case. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, neither was the Assessing Officer justified in disallowing the deduction claimed for the provision made in respect of interest accrued but not due on the deep discount bonds

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CO. CIRCLE - II (3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

section 43B relating to loans and advances from a scheduled bank is also not applicable in the instant ITA No.877, 878/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 :- 20 -: case. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, neither was the Assessing Officer justified in disallowing the deduction claimed for the provision made in respect of interest accrued but not due on the deep discount bonds

LIFECELL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

928 Less: Discounts 3,77,46,237 118,87,69,074 Total Revenue from services as per Note 21 of P/L Storage fees deferred Additions during the year to Advance Storage fees account(fresh 90,22,49,409 enrolment) Less: Revenue Recognized in P/L from Current Year Enrolments 66,09,443 Income deferred to A.Y 17-18 through the tenure

IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT-CORP CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 14A of the Act r.w.rule 8D of the Rules as per law after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly this issue of the assessee’s appeal is remanded back to the file of the AO. The order of CIT(A) and that of the AO are set aside and matter referred back to the AO. This

EMERALD HAVEN REALTY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, , CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

928/- for AY 2013-14 (deferred revenue expenditure) which is getting claimed by the assessee over and above the actual project expenses amount already considered in purchase (Sl. No.6 of P&L) item of ROI as explained above para F to K. (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is right in deleting Rs.1

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CHENNAI vs. EMERALD HAVEN REALITY LTD, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

928/- for AY 2013-14 (deferred revenue expenditure) which is getting claimed by the assessee over and above the actual project expenses amount already considered in purchase (Sl. No.6 of P&L) item of ROI as explained above para F to K. (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is right in deleting Rs.1

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CHENNAI vs. EMERALD HAVEN REALITY LTD, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

928/- for AY 2013-14 (deferred revenue expenditure) which is getting claimed by the assessee over and above the actual project expenses amount already considered in purchase (Sl. No.6 of P&L) item of ROI as explained above para F to K. (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is right in deleting Rs.1

V.V. TTITANIUM PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,,TIRUNELVELI vs. ACIT, CC-2,, MADURAI

Appeals stand dismissed

928\nAggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee as well as revenue is in further\nappeal before us.\nOur adjudication on this issue\n19.\nWe find that the additions for AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 are\nbased on certain excel sheet as exchanged in e-mail between Shri\nJegatheesan (Partner of M/s V.V. Minerals) and Smt. Jeyanthi (an\nemployee