ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

171 & 188 of 2014, dt.29.04.2015), wherein it was held that requirement to deduct tax at source under section 194C is mandatory and in case of assessee's failure to do so in respect of contractual payments, disallowance

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TRIVITRON HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.462/Mds/2016 "नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 14 A and Rule 8D have no application and hence there cannot be any disallowance under this provision. The AR relied on the Chennai Tribunal decisions : in CIT vs M. Bhaskaran — ITA No: 171

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

171 ITD 646) is applicable to the appellant's facts. • Giving effect to the order of the learned PCIT under Section 263 of the Act, the learned AO passed the order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act on 30 March 2023 with the following adjustments (refer pg no. 113 to 165 of the paperbook

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

171 ITD 646) is applicable to the appellant's facts. • Giving effect to the order of the learned PCIT under Section 263 of the Act, the learned AO passed the order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act on 30 March 2023 with the following adjustments (refer pg no. 113 to 165 of the paperbook

ST. FRANCIS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

disallowed the exemption claimed under section 11 of the Act. 2.3 The Learned AO has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act without a holistic understanding of the facts of the case”. 6.3 In the written submission, the appellant contested that the trust had obtained term loan based on the collateral security

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Income-tax Act.” 8.5 In view of the above decision (supra), the contention raised by the Ld. CIT, DR fails. For the reasons as afore-stated, we hold that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source u/s.195 of the Act on the impugned payment, and therefore, the disallowance made

ACIT(OSD) CORPORATE RANGE-1, CHENNAI vs. DAECHANG INDIA SEAT COMPANY P.LTD, SRIPERUMBUDUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1460/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Daechang India Seat Company Income Tax (Osd), P. Ltd., No. 491, Mannur Village, Corporate Range 1, Sriperumbudur, Tamil Ndu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan:Aaccd3176F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

171/- was disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and brought to tax. On appeal, By following the decision

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

171 dated 29.06.2021 6. - Details of creditors 179 7. - Details of depreciation 180 8. - Detail of default statement 181 9. - Details of donation for scientific research 182 10. 08.12.2021 Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act 282 11. 20.01.2022 Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act 285 12. 09.02.2022 Reply to the Notice under Section

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

disallowance at 20% of alleged bogus purchases as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance of 12% in ROI u/s 148. 3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in adjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus purchases, which is over and above the disallowances

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

disallowance at 20% of alleged bogus purchases as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance of 12% in ROI u/s 148. 3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in adjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus purchases, which is over and above the disallowances

THE GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 12 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/18, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17 M/S. The Government The Income Tax Officer, Telecommunications Employees Ncw – 12(3)/Acit 12(1), Cooperative Society Ltd., New No. 112, Chennai. Old No. 37A, Sembudoss Street, Vs. Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aabat3072B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 13.07.2017, 16.08.2018, 21.01.2020 & 27.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17. Since Common Grounds In Identical Facts Involved In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

171 of 2021 dated 09.03.2021 against the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2703/Mds/2018 dated 23.10.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to be heard and decided afresh on the ground that the appeal order for the assessment

THE GOVT. TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 12(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/18, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17 M/S. The Government The Income Tax Officer, Telecommunications Employees Ncw – 12(3)/Acit 12(1), Cooperative Society Ltd., New No. 112, Chennai. Old No. 37A, Sembudoss Street, Vs. Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aabat3072B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 13.07.2017, 16.08.2018, 21.01.2020 & 27.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17. Since Common Grounds In Identical Facts Involved In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

171 of 2021 dated 09.03.2021 against the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2703/Mds/2018 dated 23.10.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to be heard and decided afresh on the ground that the appeal order for the assessment

THE GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/18, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17 M/S. The Government The Income Tax Officer, Telecommunications Employees Ncw – 12(3)/Acit 12(1), Cooperative Society Ltd., New No. 112, Chennai. Old No. 37A, Sembudoss Street, Vs. Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aabat3072B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 13.07.2017, 16.08.2018, 21.01.2020 & 27.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17. Since Common Grounds In Identical Facts Involved In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

171 of 2021 dated 09.03.2021 against the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2703/Mds/2018 dated 23.10.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to be heard and decided afresh on the ground that the appeal order for the assessment

THE GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 12 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/18, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17 M/S. The Government The Income Tax Officer, Telecommunications Employees Ncw – 12(3)/Acit 12(1), Cooperative Society Ltd., New No. 112, Chennai. Old No. 37A, Sembudoss Street, Vs. Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aabat3072B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 13.07.2017, 16.08.2018, 21.01.2020 & 27.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17. Since Common Grounds In Identical Facts Involved In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

171 of 2021 dated 09.03.2021 against the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2703/Mds/2018 dated 23.10.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to be heard and decided afresh on the ground that the appeal order for the assessment

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE I(1), CHENNAI vs. A V A CHOLAYIL HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ava Cholayil Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., 1583, J. Block, 6Th Avenue, 15Th Main Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. Chennai 600 034. Road, Chennai 600 102. [Pan: Aaica2178A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 28.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Giving Relief To The Assessee By Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.44,22,711/- For Ay 2013-14 & Rs.45,56,529/- For Ay 2014-15 Claimed Under Section 36( 1 )(Iii) When The Assessee Company Has Not Produced Any Evidence Regarding The Transaction For Validating The Claim That It Arose

disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer, which is in violation of the Rule 46A and pleaded for setting aside the appellate order. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the sides

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Income-tax Act.\"\n8.5\nIn view of the above decision (supra), the contention raised by the\nLd. CIT, DR fails. For the reasons as afore-stated, we hold that the\nassessee was not required to deduct tax at source u/s.195 of the Act on\nthe impugned payment, and therefore, the disallowance made

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

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 13.2 The CIT(A) has, both in the case of TII and EID, kept on repeating the words “when undivided share of land (UDS) cannot be sold separately without corresponding sale of flats. The UDS is inseparable, meaning thereby, UDS goes along with the sale of flats“. There is no law or rule

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted