MAHENDRA KUMAR DAMANI,VIRUTHUNAGAR vs. ADIT(CPC), BENGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.805 & 806/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2019-20 Mr.Mahendra Kumar Damani, V. The Asst. Director Of- 7/5, Velayutham Rastha, Sivakasi, Income Tax, Virudhunagar District-626 123. Cpc, Bangalore.

disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA provides that the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 10A shall apply to in relation to the deduction specified in section 10AA(1). The said

MAHENDRA KUMAR DAMANI,VIRUTHUNAGAR vs. ADIT(CPC), BENGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.805 & 806/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2019-20 Mr.Mahendra Kumar Damani, V. The Asst. Director Of- 7/5, Velayutham Rastha, Sivakasi, Income Tax, Virudhunagar District-626 123. Cpc, Bangalore.

disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA provides that the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 10A shall apply to in relation to the deduction specified in section 10AA(1). The said

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

disallowance of deduction under section 10A, being one more consequence, cannot be held to be directory, but mandatory Under this factual and legal position, it has to be held that the interest payable by the assessee under section 234A is for his failure to file the return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

disallowance of deduction under section 10A, being one more consequence, cannot be held to be directory, but mandatory Under this factual and legal position, it has to be held that the interest payable by the assessee under section 234A is for his failure to file the return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

disallowance of deduction under section 10A, being one more consequence, cannot be held to be directory, but mandatory Under this factual and legal position, it has to be held that the interest payable by the assessee under section 234A is for his failure to file the return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,TUTUCORIN vs. DCIT, CC-1,, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

disallowance of deduction under section 10A, being one more consequence, cannot be held to be directory, but mandatory Under this factual and legal position, it has to be held that the interest payable by the assessee under section 234A is for his failure to file the return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ASTROTECH STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1150/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Astrotech Steels Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1) 19, Ii Floor, Right Wing, Ghatala Towers, Chennai. Avenue Road, Nungambakkam Vs. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakca-0128-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

disallowance. 5. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that it was not mandatory to file this form and it was a regulatory measure only. 4 Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jayanthilal Patel (2001) (248 ITR 199) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

M/S. SUSILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1,, CHENNAI

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

disallowance were\ncarried out, those may be rectified. Hence, the CBDT itself accepted\nthe position that even returns filed u/s.139 is to be accepted. It\nmeans that it has enlarged its scope of section 139

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the\nRules

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the\nRules

AMMAPURAM RAJARAMAN RAJESH,TRICHY vs. DCIT, NCC-17(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.813/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(4) of the Act, has rightly held that such a loss cannot be allowed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has filed return of income showing total income of Rs. 63,35,980/- on 29.08.2019 within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1), but did not verify

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the\nRules

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the\nRules

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the\nRules

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the\nRules

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the\nRules

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

139\nabates and becomes non est. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under\nSection 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Whereas in the case on hand,\nthere was concealment by the petitioner while filing his first return of\nincome for the assessment year 2012-2013. In fact, the levying of penalty\nwas already dropped in view

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

139\nabates and becomes non est. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under\nSection 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Whereas in the case on hand,\nthere was concealment by the petitioner while filing his first return of\nincome for the assessment year 2012-2013. In fact, the levying of penalty\nwas already dropped in view