ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

disallowance of Rs.42,29,48,758/- by the Ld.CIT(A) which was made by the Ld.AO invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. It was contested that the addition by the Ld.AO was based upon an arbitrary application of Rule-11UA of the Income Tax Rules. 3.0 During the course of present proceedings, the Ld.Counsel

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

254 taxman 238 [Bombay] and letter dated 21.02.2006 issued by the CBDT to IRDA, further, taking into account, the same practice followed by the consistently for all the assessment years held that the amendment w.e.f. AY 2011-12 to Rule 5(b) of first schedule has no way nullified/ rendered in defective/ rendered nugatory, held that the assessee is entitled

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

2)(iii) accordingly. This ground is therefore partly allowed. This ground is therefore partly allowed. 4. Ground No. 3 is against the disallowance of deduction claimed in Ground No. 3 is against the disallowance of deduction claimed in Ground No. 3 is against the disallowance of deduction claimed in respect of wealth tax of Rs.11,63,372/ of Rs.11

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

254 taxman\n238 [Bombay] and letter dated 21.02.2006 issued by the CBDT to IRDA,\nfurther, taking into account, the same practice followed by the consistently\nfor all the assessment years held that the amendment w.e.f. AY 2011-12\nto Rule 5(b) of first schedule has no way nullified/ rendered in defective/\nrendered nugatory, held that the assessee is entitled

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

254 taxman\n238 [Bombay] and letter dated 21.02.2006 issued by the CBDT to IRDA,\nfurther, taking into account, the same practice followed by the consistently\nfor all the assessment years held that the amendment w.e.f. AY 2011-12\nto Rule 5(b) of first schedule has no way nullified/ rendered in defective/\nrendered nugatory, held that the assessee is entitled

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

254 taxman\n238 [Bombay] and letter dated 21.02.2006 issued by the CBDT to IRDA,\nfurther, taking into account, the same practice followed by the consistently\nfor all the assessment years held that the amendment w.e.f. AY 2011-12\nto Rule 5(b) of first schedule has no way nullified/ rendered in defective/\nrendered nugatory, held that the assessee is entitled

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

254 taxman\n238 [Bombay] and letter dated 21.02.2006 issued by the CBDT to IRDA,\nfurther, taking into account, the same practice followed by the consistently\nfor all the assessment years held that the amendment w.e.f. AY 2011-12\nto Rule 5(b) of first schedule has no way nullified/ rendered in defective/\nrendered nugatory, held that the assessee is entitled

M/S T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAIVS.ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee are\ndecided as under:-\n\n| ITA Nos\n| Assessment\nYear\nResult\n| IT(TP)A No

2) shall apply to the amalgamated company or the resulting company, as the case may be, as they would have applied to the amalgamating company or the demerged company.\n(4) For the purposes of this section, —new assetll means any new plant or machinery (other than ship or aircraft) but does not include—\n(i) any plant or machinery

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

254 (Hyderabad\nTrib.):\nShare premium received from non-residents can neither\nbe assessed under Section 56(1) or 56(2)(viib).\n7.5.18 I have considered the order of the AO and the\nsubmissions made by the assessee. The general scheme\nof the Income tax Act is that only revenue receipts have\nto be taxed; capital receipts cannot be taxed unless

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

254 (Hyderabad - Trib.):\nShare premium received from non-residents can neither be assessed under Section 56(1) or 56(2)(viib).\n7.5.18 I have considered the order of the AO and the submissions made by the assessee. The general scheme of the Income tax Act is that only revenue receipts have to be taxed; capital receipts cannot be taxed unless

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

disallowance should not have been deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) for the reason given in assessment order y the ld AO. He extensively referred assessment order on all these [3] issues. 07. 08. 09. The Authorised Representative submitted that the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed in view of the issues already decided

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

disallowance should not have been deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) for the reason given in assessment order y the ld AO. He extensively referred assessment order on all these [3] issues. 07. 08. 09. The Authorised Representative submitted that the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed in view of the issues already decided

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

disallowance should not have been deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) for the reason given in assessment order y the ld AO. He extensively referred assessment order on all these [3] issues. 07. 08. 09. The Authorised Representative submitted that the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed in view of the issues already decided

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

254 ITR 158 (Mad.) and he also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v.Keshrimal Parasmal reported in [1986] 157 ITR 484 (Raj.) to assail the impugned action of the Ld.PCIT invoking his revisional jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act to interfere with the initiation of penalty by the AO in the assessment

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

disallowed ₹148,43, 01,915/-.\nThe Id CIT (A) after considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in\ncase of Rotork controls India private limited versus Commissioner of income tax\n314 ITR 62 considered that if there is a present obligation with respect to the\nprovision, and it arises out of events involving outflow of resources

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

disallowed ₹148,43, 01,915/-.\nThe Id CIT (A) after considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in\ncase of Rotork controls India private limited versus Commissioner of income tax\n314 ITR 62 considered that if there is a present obligation with respect to the\nprovision, and it arises out of events involving outflow of resources

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

disallowed ₹148,43, 01,915/-.\nThe Id CIT (A) after considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in\ncase of Rotork controls India private limited versus Commissioner of income tax\n314 ITR 62 considered that if there is a present obligation with respect to the\nprovision, and it arises out of events involving outflow of resources

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

disallowed ₹148,43, 01,915/-.\nThe Id CIT (A) after considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in\ncase of Rotork controls India private limited versus Commissioner of income tax\n314 ITR 62 considered that if there is a present obligation with respect to the\nprovision, and it arises out of events involving outflow of resources