ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the 89,11,904 1,84,18,116 Act on account of failure

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S AGNICE FIRE PROTECTION LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1107/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Agnice Fire Protection Limited, Income Tax, Vs. No. 2, G.K. Industrial Estate, I Main Corporate Circle 1(1), Road, Alapakkam, Porur Post, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 116. [Pan: Aaaca9432F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Suresh Periasamy, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai Dated 29.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Non-Payment Of Employees Contribution Of Epf & Esi To The Tune Of ₹.61.71 Lakhs, Which Was Disallowed Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

116. [PAN: AAACA9432F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.12.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue

NORTHERN ARC CAPITAL LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IFMR CAPITAL FINANCE PVT LTD),CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.205/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Northern Arc Capital Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, [Formerly Known As Ifmr Capital Finance Pvt.Ltd.] Corporate Circle-4(2) 10Th Floor, Phase-I. Chennai. Iit Madras Research Park, Kanagam Village, Taramani, Chennai-600 113. Pan: Aacci 0979B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 14A of the Act. In response, the assessee has furnished working of disallowance u/s.14A, thereby arrived at disallowance of Rs.5,52,12,116

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance of ₹.8,78,08,404/- of the deduction claimed by assessee u/s 36(1)(viii) of :- 14 -: the 1961 Act, vide assessment order dated 29.03.2016 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 7. The assessee being aggrieved by an assessment framed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act filed first appeal with learned

SRINIVASA FASHINS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

disallowance of employee's contribution when the same was not paid within the time provided under the statute under which the welfare fund was created and held so in paragraph 19: '19. Therefore, income of the assessee includes any sum received by the assessee from his employee as contribution to any Provident Fund or superannuation fund or funds

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

disallowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 14. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals), after considering the CBDT Circular No.2/2002 dated 15.2.2002 and 4/2004 dated 13.5.2004, relied on by the assessee, observed that these are issued by the CBDT in relation to a clarification regarding Tax Deduction at Source u/s.193

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

disallowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 14. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals), after considering the CBDT Circular No.2/2002 dated 15.2.2002 and 4/2004 dated 13.5.2004, relied on by the assessee, observed that these are issued by the CBDT in relation to a clarification regarding Tax Deduction at Source u/s.193

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

disallowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 14. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals), after considering the CBDT Circular No.2/2002 dated 15.2.2002 and 4/2004 dated 13.5.2004, relied on by the assessee, observed that these are issued by the CBDT in relation to a clarification regarding Tax Deduction at Source u/s.193

RANE HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

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

Section 37 of the Act. The Ld.counsel further submitted that an amount of `8,90,585/- was held by the Assessing Officer as disallowable, hence, the same amount which was shown as credit item in the immediately succeeding year should also be excluded from total income. 9. On the contrary, Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. RANE HOLDINGS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

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

Section 37 of the Act. The Ld.counsel further submitted that an amount of `8,90,585/- was held by the Assessing Officer as disallowable, hence, the same amount which was shown as credit item in the immediately succeeding year should also be excluded from total income. 9. On the contrary, Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. RANE HOLDINGS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

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

Section 37 of the Act. The Ld.counsel further submitted that an amount of `8,90,585/- was held by the Assessing Officer as disallowable, hence, the same amount which was shown as credit item in the immediately succeeding year should also be excluded from total income. 9. On the contrary, Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowance is noted to have made on mere suspicion and unfounded, baseless observations, as already discussed above. 5.20 According to us, the fact that high profits were earned by the eligible unit in comparison to other units by itself cannot lead to conclusion that the deduction claimed u/s 80-IC was excessive. It is well known that higher or lower

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

disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 24,809 on the ground that the amount was not actually spent. The assessee ultimately succeeded in the Supreme Court. It was held by the Supreme Court that the expression "profits or gains" in section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 should be understood in its commercial sense and there

M/S AADHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

disallowance of interest and not section 68 of the Act.The other observations of the AO as mentioned above do not have any relevance to the fact in issue and the finding recorded. 15. The facts stated by the AO are facts admitted by the assessee and the Pacatolus is a Special Purpose Vehicle funded by PGF and therefore, no adverse