ASHOK GIRI ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2060/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Ashok Giri, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 13, 32Nd Cross Street, Vs. Income Tax, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Corporate Circle 3(2), [Pan: Aacpa4186F] Chennai 34. (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai, Dated 29.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessing Officer Order U/S 154 Of The Act On Debatable Issues.

section 154 of the Act dated 06.10.2015 was issued and the assessee was requested to show-cause: “1. As to why disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of ₹.38,61,193

M/S.MAHOGANY LOGISTICS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

section 193 of the Act and proceeded to disallow 30% of the impugned interest expenditure. The said discussion, which clearly

ACIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

disallowance as estimated by the Assessing Officer to the extent of ₹.41,81,667/- under section 43D of the Act. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, by referring to page No. 138, relied on the decision in the case of The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT in I.T.A. Nos. 1401, 1402 &1403/Mds/2012 for the assessment years

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. AMBATTUR CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUVALLUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1663/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ambattur Clothing Private Limited, Income Tax, 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ambattur Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai. Ambattur, Thiruvallur 600 058. [Pan:Aaaca4127D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vinay Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 67 Days. The Appellant-Revenue Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Revenue Are Bonafide, Which 2

193 ITR 49 (Ker)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -5(1), CHENNAI vs. H.NOOR MOHAMMED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Rules. He noted that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.7,54,241/- as interest in the Profit & Loss Account for the year ended 31.03.2008. Therefore, the AO made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) being interest payment of Rs.7,54,241/- and again made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) i.e., direct

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

disallowed the difference of share premium of ₹.123.42 [₹.193 – ₹.69.58] per share under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in respect

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

disallowed the difference of share premium of ₹.123.42 [₹.193 – ₹.69.58] per share under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in respect

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

193/-, ₹6,39,24,000/- and ₹9,31,48,000/- for the A.Ys 2008-09, 2009- 10 and 2010-11 respectively. The assessee objected the disallowances and contended that the AO erred in adopting Rule 8D for allocation of expenditure against dividend income. The expenditure actually incurred can be disallowed u/s.14A of the Act and estimated expenditure cannot be apportioned

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

193/-, ₹6,39,24,000/- and ₹9,31,48,000/- for the A.Ys 2008-09, 2009- 10 and 2010-11 respectively. The assessee objected the disallowances and contended that the AO erred in adopting Rule 8D for allocation of expenditure against dividend income. The expenditure actually incurred can be disallowed u/s.14A of the Act and estimated expenditure cannot be apportioned

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

193/-, ₹6,39,24,000/- and ₹9,31,48,000/- for the A.Ys 2008-09, 2009- 10 and 2010-11 respectively. The assessee objected the disallowances and contended that the AO erred in adopting Rule 8D for allocation of expenditure against dividend income. The expenditure actually incurred can be disallowed u/s.14A of the Act and estimated expenditure cannot be apportioned

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

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

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) in this regard is held to be unjustified and is directed to be deleted. This ground is therefore allowed. ITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 21 :: 9. Ground No. 8 of the assessee’s appeal is against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of confirming the AO’s order

SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.173/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shriram Finance Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Shriram Transport Income Tax, Finance Company Limited), Corporate Circle 3(1), Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Chennai. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

193 ITR 49 (Ker)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section

RAJAPALAYAM MILLS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE,, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1251/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Rajapalayam Mills Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Post Box No. 1, Rajapalayam Mills Income Tax, Premises, P.A.C. Ramasamy Raja Corporate Circle, Salai, Rajapalayam, Madurai. Virudhunagar 626 117. [Pan: Aaacr8897F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Pcit Is Justified In Directing The Assessing Officer For Working Out Disallowance Under Section 2

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 7. Regarding the insertion of Explanation to section 14A of the Act by way of Finance Act, 2022, we find that while taking into consideration the said amendment, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (supra), held that it is settled law that

M.A.M.R.MUTHIAH, L/H OF LATE DR. M.A.M.RAMASWAMY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2120/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri M.A.M.R. Muthiah, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of L/H Of Late Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy, Income Tax, Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalai Corporate Circle 1(2), Puram, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aajpr4449M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2284/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Late (Shri) M.A.M. Ramaswamy, Income Tax, (Now Represented By L/H Shri M.A.M.R. Central Circle 3(2), Muthiah, Chettinad House, Rajah Chennai. Annamalai Puram, Chennai 600 028. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate Department By : Shri V. Justin, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 20.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 07.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D for ₹.24,00,193/-. From the Balance sheet submitted by the assessee

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI vs. LATE (SHRI) M.A.M.RAMASWAMY (NOW REP BY L/H SHRI M.A.M.R.MUTHIA), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2120/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri M.A.M.R. Muthiah, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of L/H Of Late Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy, Income Tax, Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalai Corporate Circle 1(2), Puram, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aajpr4449M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2284/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Late (Shri) M.A.M. Ramaswamy, Income Tax, (Now Represented By L/H Shri M.A.M.R. Central Circle 3(2), Muthiah, Chettinad House, Rajah Chennai. Annamalai Puram, Chennai 600 028. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate Department By : Shri V. Justin, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 20.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 07.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D for ₹.24,00,193/-. From the Balance sheet submitted by the assessee

T vs. INTERCONNECT SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MADURAIVS.DCIT, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.552 & 553/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011-2012. Tvs Interconnect Systems Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Tvs Circle I(1) Interconnect Systems Ltd) Madurai. 7-B, West Veli Street, Maduarai 625 001. [Pan Aadcs 3666G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 14A read with Rule 8D will not be applicable in regard to investments made for acquiring the shares of the assessee’s sister concerns. Accordingly we restrain ourselves from interfering with the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this regard.” It is ordered accordingly’’. We remit the disputed issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer to verify

T vs. INTERCONNECT SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MADURAIVS.DCIT, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.552 & 553/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011-2012. Tvs Interconnect Systems Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Tvs Circle I(1) Interconnect Systems Ltd) Madurai. 7-B, West Veli Street, Maduarai 625 001. [Pan Aadcs 3666G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 14A read with Rule 8D will not be applicable in regard to investments made for acquiring the shares of the assessee’s sister concerns. Accordingly we restrain ourselves from interfering with the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this regard.” It is ordered accordingly’’. We remit the disputed issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer to verify