LAKSHMI ELECTRICAL DRIVES LTD,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1707/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Lakshmi Electrical Drives Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 504, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 004. Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aaacl5246Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Raghu, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D (2)(ii). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 13.09.2013 declaring total income of ₹.5,28,57,940/- under normal provision and ₹.3,63,37,554/- under MAT computation. The return was processed under section

SHRIRAM INSIGHT SHARE BROKERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.733, 734 & 735/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

disallowed being an expenditure for earning dividend income. The question arises for consideration is whether `4,37,291/- was to be increased while computing income under Section 115JB of the Act? We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB(2) of the Act clearly says that the amount

SHRIRAM INSIGHT SHARE BROKERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.733, 734 & 735/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

disallowed being an expenditure for earning dividend income. The question arises for consideration is whether `4,37,291/- was to be increased while computing income under Section 115JB of the Act? We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB(2) of the Act clearly says that the amount

SHRIRAM INSIGHT SHARE BROKERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.733, 734 & 735/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

disallowed being an expenditure for earning dividend income. The question arises for consideration is whether `4,37,291/- was to be increased while computing income under Section 115JB of the Act? We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB(2) of the Act clearly says that the amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM vs. PANDYAN GRAMA BANK, SALEM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024 & Co No.06/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Pandyan Grama Bank, Income Tax, Vs. Now Known As Tamil Nadu Grama Circle 1, Bank, Salem. No.6, Yercaud Road, Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. [Pan: Aahat-7854-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate & Shri. P. Gurusamy, I.T.P. Department By : Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025

244A was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 11. The Respondent craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing. :-4-: I.T.A. No.:2870/Chny/2024 & C.O. No.06/Chny/2025 3. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 39 days in appeal filed by the revenue. After hearing both

THE CRAFTS COUNCIL OF INDIA,CHENNAI vs. JCIT(EXEMPTIONS) , CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.943, 944, 945 & 946/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-2012, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) The Crafts Council Of India, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Gf Temple Trees, Tax, Venkatnarayanana Road, (Exemptions) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaatc 1433B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

section 2(15), as per the decision of the Apex Court. The AO and CIT(A) has disallowed depreciation claimed by the Appellant on the ground that the investments depreciable capital assets have been allowed as deduction in the year of investment and hence granting depreciation on the same assets would amount to double deduction. This issue has been considered

THE CRAFTS COUNCIL OF INDIA,CHENNAI vs. JCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.943, 944, 945 & 946/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-2012, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) The Crafts Council Of India, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Gf Temple Trees, Tax, Venkatnarayanana Road, (Exemptions) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaatc 1433B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

section 2(15), as per the decision of the Apex Court. The AO and CIT(A) has disallowed depreciation claimed by the Appellant on the ground that the investments depreciable capital assets have been allowed as deduction in the year of investment and hence granting depreciation on the same assets would amount to double deduction. This issue has been considered

THE CRAFTS COUNCIL OF INDIA,CHENNAI vs. JCIT(EXEMPTIONS) , CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.943, 944, 945 & 946/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-2012, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) The Crafts Council Of India, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Gf Temple Trees, Tax, Venkatnarayanana Road, (Exemptions) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaatc 1433B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

section 2(15), as per the decision of the Apex Court. The AO and CIT(A) has disallowed depreciation claimed by the Appellant on the ground that the investments depreciable capital assets have been allowed as deduction in the year of investment and hence granting depreciation on the same assets would amount to double deduction. This issue has been considered

ANANYA INFRA STRUCTURE PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2389 & 2390/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the Cost of Operation of Rs.1,81,50,000/- against which the appellant has earned income during the year under appeal. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the appellant had declared interest income under the head other sources and claimed the interest paid under section

ANANYA INFRA STRUCTURE PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2389 & 2390/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the Cost of Operation of Rs.1,81,50,000/- against which the appellant has earned income during the year under appeal. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the appellant had declared interest income under the head other sources and claimed the interest paid under section

SESHASAYEE PAPER AND BOARDS LTD.,ERODE vs. DCIT NAMAKKAL CIRCLE, NAMAKKAL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

244A of the Act, along with the refund, fully satisfies the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and, therefore, it has to be taxed in the year of its receipt. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 squarely supports this view. The fact that

M/S. SPENCER TRAVEL SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section (1) of Sec.201 by furnishing the requisite documents as specified therein. The Ld. AO would verify the claim of the assessee and re-adjudicate the same. The corresponding grounds stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Another issue in the appeal is withdrawal of interest granted to the assessee u/s 244A. The same stem from the fact that

CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3738/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chennai Metro Rail Limited, V. Dcit, Metros Anna Salai, Corporate Circle -1(1), Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan:Aadcc 2233 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026

244A) was issued. Assessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 were initiated through notice u/s.143(2) dated 22.09.2019 under the e-assessment mechanism. Further notices u/s.142(1) with questionnaires were issued, to which the Assessee responded. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) proposed adjustments, including disallowance of gratuity amounting to Rs.37,58,066 u/s. 40A(7) on the ground that

DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY vs. THE LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LTD., KARUR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

2. As is evident, the subject matter of assessee’s appeal is (i)Computation of Deduction u/s 36(viia) and enhancement made therein; (ii) Computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii); (iii) Withdrawal of interest u/s 244A; (iv) Enhancement of Income on depreciation on investments & (v) TDS Credit. The assessee is also aggrieved by the fact that revised return

THE LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LIMITED,KARUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

2. As is evident, the subject matter of assessee’s appeal is (i)Computation of Deduction u/s 36(viia) and enhancement made therein; (ii) Computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii); (iii) Withdrawal of interest u/s 244A; (iv) Enhancement of Income on depreciation on investments & (v) TDS Credit. The assessee is also aggrieved by the fact that revised return

IDUMBEN KNITTERS, ,TIRUPUR CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 711/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Idumban Knitters Assistant Commissioner Of S.F. No. 440, 443, Sbi Colony, V. Income Tax, Gandhi Nagar Post, Circle-1, Tirupur – 641 603. Tirupur. [Pan: Aaafi-7635-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M A Srinivasan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

disallowed payment of Rs.83,60,283/-, being Rs.25,08,085/- added to the income, which include Rs.7,95,000/- being 30% of Rs.26,50,000/-, paid to Mr.U.S.Dinesh, who was the General Manager of the firm, for not having complied with the TDS :-4-: ITA. No:711/Chny/2023 provisions of Section 192, as per the provisions of section