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

disallowance; 2) The assessment is framed and the Section 251(1)(a) Assessing Officer makes certain additions or disallowances and in making

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowance of deduction claimed in respect of wealth tax of Rs.11,63,372/ of Rs.11,63,372/-. 4.1 At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee didn’t pre At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee didn’t pre At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee didn’t press this ground since in the assessee’s own case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

Section 14A of the Act with respect to interest cost is called for on such investments subject to verification of the details (regarding own funds and investment in exempt income yielding funds) furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. 4.1.5 Now coming to the second issue regarding computation of administrative expenditure in accordance with Rule

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

Section 14A of the Act with respect to interest cost is called for on such investments subject to verification of the details (regarding own funds and investment in exempt income yielding funds) furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. 4.1.5 Now coming to the second issue regarding computation of administrative expenditure in accordance with Rule

JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-2, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

disallow this deduction claimed by the assessee and enhance the assessment in this regard. After considering the replies submitted by the assessee, the CIT(A) held that the same is not an allowable deduction as the fall in the value of SR was to be treated as bad debt and the same was to be taken to PBDD account

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

disallowance of expenditure, enhanced the income of the assessee by proposing the addition of total sale consideration received on account of sale of agricultural land. The ld.AR submitted that with respect to enhancement of income, as per section 251

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

disallowance of expenditure, enhanced the income of the assessee by proposing the addition of total sale consideration received on account of sale of agricultural land. The ld.AR submitted that with respect to enhancement of income, as per section 251

SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.84/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

section 115 JB (Para .6.1 at Page 50). As is evident, the additions / disallowance which forms the subject matter of this appeal are i.e., (i) Disallowance u/s 14A; (ii) Disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure; (iii) Disallowance of Bad debts written-off; (iv) Disallowance of 50% expenditure towards R&D facility: (v) Disallowance of Electricity Tax u/s 43B as well

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

section 251(1)(a) provides the Ild.CIT(A)\ncould enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the\nAO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal.\nIn the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

section 251(1)(a) provides the Ild.CIT(A)\nPAGE-19\n:-19-:\nITA Nos: 991, 992, 993,\n1639 & 1644/Chny/2025\ncould enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the\nAO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal.\nIn the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance

M/S. KARUR VYSYA BANK,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1),, TRICHY

Section\n36(1)(viia). However, sustained additions made towards\ndisallowance of bad debts written off and depreciation on\ninvestments. The Id. CIT(A) had also enhanced the assessment and\ndirected the AO to make additions towards disallowance of excess\nclaim of depreciation on security receipts and disallowance of bad\ndebts written off (prudential write off). Aggrieved by the Id.\nCIT

KRISHNAN SARAVANAN,ODDANCHATRAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, MADURAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1523/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Shri. Krishnan Saravanan, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 383/E-5D, Bye Pass Road, Income Tax-1, Oddanchatram 624 619. Madurai. [Pan: Asyps 5316H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Bharath Janarthanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri.S.R.Karuppusamy, Irs, Cit.

disallow the same. Therefore, a parallel proceeding on the very same issue is not recognized in law, especially when the same is still within the powers of enhancement of the National Faceless Appeal Centre under section 251

KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

section 251 of the Act in regard to enhancement of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in his written submissions, relied on the case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co., [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) and argued that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has categorically held that whatever

KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

section 251 of the Act in regard to enhancement of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in his written submissions, relied on the case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co., [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) and argued that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has categorically held that whatever

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

section 251 of the Act in regard to enhancement of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in his written submissions, relied on the case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co., [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) and argued that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has categorically held that whatever

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

section 251 of the Act in regard to enhancement of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in his written submissions, relied on the case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co., [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) and argued that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has categorically held that whatever

RASIPURAM VIVEKANANDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,RASIPURAM vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 251 of\nthe Act, failure of it amounts to arbitrary action and therefore, we are\ninclined to set aside both the impugned orders and restore the appeals\nback to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal raised by\nthe assessee in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. The\nassessee is directed to file

SHAMIMULLAH,VELLORE vs. ITO, NCW-11(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.473/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shamimullah, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 56, Masuthi Street, Non Corporate Ward 11(2), Near Canara Bank, Arakkonam, Chennai. Vellore 631 001. [Pan:Dalps5068E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Gopalan, Irs (Jcit Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act shall be 100% of cash payments exceeding ₹.20,000/- after issuing various notices for enhancement under section 251

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. ARULMIGU MADHURAKALIAMMAN TEMPLE, SIRAVACHUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1015/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Income Tax Officer, Arulmigu Madhurakaliamman Exemptions Ward, Temple, Trichy. Siravachur, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu-621 113. [Pan: Aacaa9147R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 : घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

disallowances of exemption for not having registered u/s 12AA is not reasonable when the assessee has obtained the said registration certificate which is also applicable for the assessment year under consideration as held by various case laws. 5.6 The Appellant's contention has been taken into consideration and the benefit of exemption should be available on the date of registration