DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 40A(3) in respect of the cash payments to the partnership firm, M/s.Abhijay Pharma Medical Technologies, wherein the assessee is also a partner, as it is noted that the cash payments have been made on account of commercial expediency, in view of the proviso after Sec.40A(3A) which is also applicable to Sec.40A(3), the disallowance as made

DR.S.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 40A(3) in respect of the cash payments to the partnership firm, M/s.Abhijay Pharma Medical Technologies, wherein the assessee is also a partner, as it is noted that the cash payments have been made on account of commercial expediency, in view of the proviso after Sec.40A(3A) which is also applicable to Sec.40A(3), the disallowance as made

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 40A(3) in respect of the cash payments to the partnership firm, M/s.Abhijay Pharma Medical Technologies, wherein the assessee is also a partner, as it is noted that the cash payments have been made on account of commercial expediency, in view of the proviso after Sec.40A(3A) which is also applicable to Sec.40A(3), the disallowance as made

DR.S.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 40A(3) in respect of the cash payments to the partnership firm, M/s.Abhijay Pharma Medical Technologies, wherein the assessee is also a partner, as it is noted that the cash payments have been made on account of commercial expediency, in view of the proviso after Sec.40A(3A) which is also applicable to Sec.40A(3), the disallowance as made

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 40A(3) in respect of the cash payments to the partnership firm, M/s.Abhijay Pharma Medical Technologies, wherein the assessee is also a partner, as it is noted that the cash payments have been made on account of commercial expediency, in view of the proviso after Sec.40A(3A) which is also applicable to Sec.40A(3), the disallowance as made

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 40A(3) in respect of the cash payments to the partnership firm, M/s.Abhijay Pharma Medical Technologies, wherein the assessee is also a partner, as it is noted that the cash payments have been made on account of commercial expediency, in view of the proviso after Sec.40A(3A) which is also applicable to Sec.40A(3), the disallowance as made

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 40A(3) in respect of the cash payments to the partnership firm, M/s.Abhijay Pharma Medical Technologies, wherein the assessee is also a partner, as it is noted that the cash payments have been made on account of commercial expediency, in view of the proviso after Sec.40A(3A) which is also applicable to Sec.40A(3), the disallowance as made

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 40A(3) in respect of the cash payments to the partnership firm, M/s.Abhijay Pharma Medical Technologies, wherein the assessee is also a partner, as it is noted that the cash payments have been made on account of commercial expediency, in view of the proviso after Sec.40A(3A) which is also applicable to Sec.40A(3), the disallowance as made

DR.S.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 40A(3) in respect of the cash payments to the partnership firm, M/s.Abhijay Pharma Medical Technologies, wherein the assessee is also a partner, as it is noted that the cash payments have been made on account of commercial expediency, in view of the proviso after Sec.40A(3A) which is also applicable to Sec.40A(3), the disallowance as made

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)

disallowed invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. 11. Similarly, the decision reported in 251 ITR 640 and another decision

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. 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)

disallowed invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. 11. Similarly, the decision reported in 251 ITR 640 and another decision

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)

disallowed invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. 11. Similarly, the decision reported in 251 ITR 640 and another decision

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

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

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 Id.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