NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 2(22)(e) of the Act does not arise. The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts, has confirmed additions made by the AO. Hence, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete additions made towards deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act towards advance received from M/s Tristar Accommodation Limited

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 2(22)(e) are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding that, the conclusion of the Assessing Officer erred in concluding that the appellant had indirectly borrowed the funds of MIs. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. through the books of M/s. Infinity Jewellers and MIs. Mariyam

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI vs. RATHINAM THIRUPATHISWAMY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3136/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs Smt. Rathinam Thirupathiswamy, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.152, Peters Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai – 600 086. Chennai. Pan: Aadpt7758D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri V. Nandakumar, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 14.05.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

2) of the Act was issued on 31.08.2015. Finally the assessment order was passed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 20.12.2016 wherein the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.2,77,98,670/- towards deemed dividend U/s.2(22)(e) of the Act and Rs.3,20,842/- towards disallowance of sales promotion expenses. 4. Addition of Rs.2,77,98,930/- on account

JCIT (OSD), CC - 1(1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ABAN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.380/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax (Osd), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 008. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The First Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D.

disallowances under section 14A of the Act amounting to ₹.3,40,39,003/- and a sum of ₹.1,19,00,031/- was held as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SMT. REETA LANKALINGAM, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S.S. Godara

2,42,99,879/- In the course of hearing, both parties agree that ITA No.19/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2005-2006 and ITA No. 21/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2007-2008 in case of Shri. Lankalingam be treated as the ‘lead cases’ for deciding common I.T.A.No.15 /Mds/2014 and others. :- 5 -: . issues of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) and disallowance

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ABAN INVESTMENTS P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These three appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, all dated 30.01.2017 relevant to the assessment years 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. The first common ground raised in all the appeals of the Revenue relates

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ABAN INVESTMENTS P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These three appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, all dated 30.01.2017 relevant to the assessment years 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. The first common ground raised in all the appeals of the Revenue relates

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ABAN INVESTMENTS P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These three appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, all dated 30.01.2017 relevant to the assessment years 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. The first common ground raised in all the appeals of the Revenue relates

THE RELIANCE MOTOR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the concern like the assessee which has received loan from M.Ct.M Corporation P Ltd., which is giving loan or advance is not a shareholder or member of the receiver company. Therefore, under no circumstances the assessee could be treated as shareholder, member receiving dividend. Hence, the assessment of this loan received

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE vs. INDO SHELL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1882/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Indo Shell Automative Corporate Circle-1, Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Coimbatore. A-9, Sidco Industrial Estate, Kurichi,Coimbatore-641 021. Pan: Aabci 3140D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

e) of the I.TAct. 1961. 4) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in not considering the following judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (a) In Kantilal Manilal Vs. CIT [1961] cited in 41 ITR 275 (SC), the Supreme Court held that section 2(22) deals with various types of cases and creates a fiction by which certain

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

e- mail. 8. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that normally the assessee-company deals with re-insurance company outside the country directly. However, in order to distribute the risk to various companies and the assessee may not have the entire list of re-insurance companies across the globe, the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

e- mail. 8. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that normally the assessee-company deals with re-insurance company outside the country directly. However, in order to distribute the risk to various companies and the assessee may not have the entire list of re-insurance companies across the globe, the assessee

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

e- mail. 8. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that normally the assessee-company deals with re-insurance company outside the country directly. However, in order to distribute the risk to various companies and the assessee may not have the entire list of re-insurance companies across the globe, the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

e- mail. 8. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that normally the assessee-company deals with re-insurance company outside the country directly. However, in order to distribute the risk to various companies and the assessee may not have the entire list of re-insurance companies across the globe, the assessee

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

e- mail. 8. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that normally the assessee-company deals with re-insurance company outside the country directly. However, in order to distribute the risk to various companies and the assessee may not have the entire list of re-insurance companies across the globe, the assessee

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

e- mail. 8. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that normally the assessee-company deals with re-insurance company outside the country directly. However, in order to distribute the risk to various companies and the assessee may not have the entire list of re-insurance companies across the globe, the assessee

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

e- mail. 8. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that normally the assessee-company deals with re-insurance company outside the country directly. However, in order to distribute the risk to various companies and the assessee may not have the entire list of re-insurance companies across the globe, the assessee

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

e- mail. 8. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that normally the assessee-company deals with re-insurance company outside the country directly. However, in order to distribute the risk to various companies and the assessee may not have the entire list of re-insurance companies across the globe, the assessee