ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

section 132. Consequently, the Department had full visibility of the entire financial affairs of the companies in the Group and their Directors. It is observed that the search did not reveal any assets or unexplained expenditures that were disproportionate to the income reflected in the cash flow statements. 119. Taxation of the income as determined by the AO would only

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

section 132. Consequently, the Department had full visibility of the entire financial affairs of the companies in the Group and their Directors. It is observed that the search did not reveal any assets or unexplained expenditures that were disproportionate to the income reflected in the cash flow statements. 119. Taxation of the income as determined by the AO would only

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

127,03,79,840 10,28,85,610 The CIT(A) asked for information and assessee filed the following documents:- S.No. Particulars Date of agreement 1 Power of attorney given by M/s. Tube Investments 22.06.2010 India Ltd. and EID Parry India Ltd., in favour of M/s. Parry Infrastructure Co Pvt Ltd (the appellant) 2 Joint Development Agreement 24.11.2010 3 Supplementary

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

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

127 taxmann.com 169 High Court\nof Karnataka\n• Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GE India\nTechnology Cen. (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Civil\nAppeal NOS. 7541-7778 OF 2010\n• Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sedco Forex\nInternational Inc. v. CIT; 87 taxmann.com 29 (SC)\n• Decision

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

disallowed the above said cheque deposits for having no corroboratory evidences in support of the claim made by the assessee. The assessee could not bring any evidence before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal. But, however, taking into account the submissions regarding the assessee’s deposit of his monies into his wife’s account and again

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

disallowed the above said cheque deposits for having no corroboratory evidences in support of the claim made by the assessee. The assessee could not bring any evidence before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal. But, however, taking into account the submissions regarding the assessee’s deposit of his monies into his wife’s account and again

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

disallowed the above said cheque deposits for having no corroboratory evidences in support of the claim made by the assessee. The assessee could not bring any evidence before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal. But, however, taking into account the submissions regarding the assessee’s deposit of his monies into his wife’s account and again

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

disallowed the above said cheque deposits for having no corroboratory evidences in support of the claim made by the assessee. The assessee could not bring any evidence before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal. But, however, taking into account the submissions regarding the assessee’s deposit of his monies into his wife’s account and again

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed claim of bad debts on ground that no effort had been made by assessee to recover loan advance and it was difficult to conclude that debts had become irrevocable - Whether in view of amendment to section 36(1)(vii) w.e.f. 1-4-1989, in order to claim bad debts assessee could not be called to prove same; writing

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowed claim of bad debts on ground that no effort had been made by assessee to recover loan advance and it was difficult to conclude that debts had become irrevocable - Whether in view of amendment to section 36(1)(vii) w.e.f. 1-4-1989, in order to claim bad debts assessee could not be called to prove same; writing

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 115JB(2). is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. …………………………….. ………………………………….. 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 115JB(2). is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. …………………………….. ………………………………….. 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 115JB(2). is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. …………………………….. ………………………………….. 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMASUBBU MINNALKODI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- transferred on\n11.02.2019 which pertains to EB deposit. On examination of the other\ntransactions it can be seen that these transactions were made with\nDeepa Machinery and other payments relating to the appellant's\nproprietary concern. These remittances were made through a re-\nfinance availed from Sri Ram Transport Finance, a finance

ACIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S EMPEE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.841 & 842/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner- V. M/S.Empee Sugars & Of Income Tax, Chemicals Ltd., Central Circle-1(2), 59, Empee Tower, Pudupet, Chennai. Chennai.

127 taxmann.com 805 and also in the case of CIT v. Sanmar Specialty Chemicals Ltd. reported in [2020] 122 taxmann.com 212. Further, we also note that recently the Hon’ble Madras High Court in TCA No.236 of 2017 dated 20.07.2021 in the case of CIT v. M/s.Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd., has concurred with the ratio laid down

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. M/S EMPEE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.841 & 842/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner- V. M/S.Empee Sugars & Of Income Tax, Chemicals Ltd., Central Circle-1(2), 59, Empee Tower, Pudupet, Chennai. Chennai.

127 taxmann.com 805 and also in the case of CIT v. Sanmar Specialty Chemicals Ltd. reported in [2020] 122 taxmann.com 212. Further, we also note that recently the Hon’ble Madras High Court in TCA No.236 of 2017 dated 20.07.2021 in the case of CIT v. M/s.Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd., has concurred with the ratio laid down

TEMENOS HEADQUARTERS SA,SWITZERLAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

disallowed under section 40(a)(i) - Held, yes [Para 9] [in favour of revenue} Ashok Leyland Ltd vs DCIT 92009} 120 ITO 14 (Chennai] Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Deduction of tax at sourcePayment to non-resident Assessment year 2005-06, Assessee-company, engaged in manufacturing of motor vehicles, entered into an agreement with a foreign company

TEMENOS HEADQUARTERS SA,SWITZERLAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

disallowed under section 40(a)(i) - Held, yes [Para 9] [in favour of revenue} Ashok Leyland Ltd vs DCIT 92009} 120 ITO 14 (Chennai] Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Deduction of tax at sourcePayment to non-resident Assessment year 2005-06, Assessee-company, engaged in manufacturing of motor vehicles, entered into an agreement with a foreign company