PADMINI RAJAN, L/R OF LATE (SHRI) NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act towards advance received from M/s Tristar Accommodation Limited for purchase of villas and payment made as security deposit for Joint Development Agreement. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 31 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 ITA Nos.1002 & 1161/CHNY/2018 19. The first issue that came up for our consideration

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant u/s.2(22)(e). 13.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding, the addition made by the Assessing Officer in adding the long term capital gains of Rs.16,24,68,072/- disallowing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SMT. REETA LANKALINGAM, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S.S. Godara

Deemed Dividend u/s.2 (22) (e) – Addition of "7,66,915/-. 2. Disallowance of expenditure u/s.40A (3) – Disallowance of "79,38,484/-. 3. Levy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S CHECKPOINT APPAREL LABELLING SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD, CHENGALPET

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 429/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Corporate Circle -1(2), Vs. Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai – 600 034. No. Aid / Aie, Industrial Complex, Anna Salai, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpet – 603 209. [Pan: Aagcs 9485A] ("#यथ%/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

deemed dividend can be taxed only in the hands of shareholder, has not been diluted as held by Madhur Housing (supra) and :-8-: Cargill India (supra). It is reiterated that the reference to larger Bench only seeks to dilute, the controversy regarding, whether shareholder should be both registered and beneficial shareholder and not the settled position that dividend ultimately

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI vs. RATHINAM THIRUPATHISWAMY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3136/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs Smt. Rathinam Thirupathiswamy, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.152, Peters Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai – 600 086. Chennai. Pan: Aadpt7758D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri V. Nandakumar, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 14.05.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

deemed dividend U/s.2(22)(e) of the Act and Rs.3,20,842/- towards disallowance of sales promotion expenses. 4. Addition

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ABAN INVESTMENTS P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

disallowance of deemed dividend income. 6 I.T.A. Nos.933 to 935/Chny/17 4.1 In the assessment year 2012-13, while examining the issue

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ABAN INVESTMENTS P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

disallowance of deemed dividend income. 6 I.T.A. Nos.933 to 935/Chny/17 4.1 In the assessment year 2012-13, while examining the issue

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ABAN INVESTMENTS P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

disallowance of deemed dividend income. 6 I.T.A. Nos.933 to 935/Chny/17 4.1 In the assessment year 2012-13, while examining the issue

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. THE RELIANCE MOTOR COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

Appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.404/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Reliance Motor Company Ltd, Corporate Ward 3(1) 761, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan: Aaact 1230A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. M. Karthikeyan, Irs, Addl Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. S. Nagarajan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. Hence, we delete the addition and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal’’. The bench held that under no circumstances, the assessee could be treated as shareholder / member receiving dividend. In other words, the assessee not being a shareholder, cannot be visited with impugned addition. Facts being pari-materia the same, taking

SRINIVASA MACHINE WORKS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Jcit

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e), disallowed the assessee’s claim of bad debts written off, business and sales promotion

SRINIVASA MACHINE WORKS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Jcit

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e), disallowed the assessee’s claim of bad debts written off, business and sales promotion

SRINIVASA MACHINE WORKS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Jcit

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e), disallowed the assessee’s claim of bad debts written off, business and sales promotion

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. RANE BRAKE LINING LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

deemed it fit to disallow 5% of the gross dividend income as expenditure relatable to exempt income. Since the ITAT

RANE BRAKE LININGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO (OSD), CHENNAI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

deemed it fit to disallow 5% of the gross dividend income as expenditure relatable to exempt income. Since the ITAT

RANE BRAKE LININGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO (OSD), CHENNAI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

deemed it fit to disallow 5% of the gross dividend income as expenditure relatable to exempt income. Since the ITAT

RANE BRAKE LININGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

deemed it fit to disallow 5% of the gross dividend income as expenditure relatable to exempt income. Since the ITAT

RANE BRAKE LININGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

deemed it fit to disallow 5% of the gross dividend income as expenditure relatable to exempt income. Since the ITAT

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. RANE BRAKE LINING LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

deemed it fit to disallow 5% of the gross dividend income as expenditure relatable to exempt income. Since the ITAT