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 36(1)(viii). 3.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in not relying on decision of Tribunal applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in law and on facts in disallowing the depreciation on investments which are stock-in-trade of the bank amounting

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 36(1)(viii). 3.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in not relying on decision of Tribunal applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in law and on facts in disallowing the depreciation on investments which are stock-in-trade of the bank amounting

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 36(1)(viii). 3.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in not relying on decision of Tribunal applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in law and on facts in disallowing the depreciation on investments which are stock-in-trade of the bank amounting

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 36(1)(viii). 3.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in not relying on decision of Tribunal applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals} erred in law and on facts in disallowing the depreciation on investments which are stock-in-trade of the bank amounting

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

section 263 of the Act, if requisite conditions are\nfulfillled. It is inconceivable that in the presence of such\nspecific provisions, a similar power is available to the first\nappellate authority. That being the position, the decision in\nUnion Tyres' case (supra) of this court expresses the correct\nview and does not need reconsideration. This reference is\naccordingly disposed

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1(c) provides that, when the appeal is when the appeal is pending before the Commissioner pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), then jurisdiction under jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act Section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. In the decided case, the In the decided case, the assessee had originally filed the return of income disclosing long term

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1(c) provides that, when the appeal is when the appeal is pending before the Commissioner pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), then jurisdiction under jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act Section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. In the decided case, the In the decided case, the assessee had originally filed the return of income disclosing long term

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

disallowance of provisions on account of IBNR and IBNER\nclaims charged to P & L account by holding it to be unascertained liability\nand not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the\ntotal income under the normal provisions. It is noted that the Id. PCIT\nunder section 263

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

disallowance of provisions on account of IBNR and IBNER claims charged to P & L account by holding it to be unascertained liability and not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income under the normal provisions. It is noted that the ld. PCIT under section 263

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

disallowance of provisions on account of IBNR and IBNER\nclaims charged to P & L account by holding it to be unascertained liability\nand not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the\ntotal income under the normal provisions. It is noted that the Id. PCIT\nunder section 263

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

disallowance of provisions on account of IBNR and IBNER\nclaims charged to P & L account by holding it to be unascertained liability\nand not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the\ntotal income under the normal provisions. It is noted that the Id. PCIT\nunder section 263

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

disallowance of provisions on account of IBNR and IBNER\nclaims charged to P & L account by holding it to be unascertained liability\nand not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the\ntotal income under the normal provisions. It is noted that the Id. PCIT\nunder section 263

FAIVELEY TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

disallowance is not warranted. The assessee vide letters dated 5th, 21st January and 4th March, 2021 submitted details sought by the Department. Based on the enquiry and after ITA No.1598 /Chny/2024 considering the responses filed by the Appellant, the scrutiny assessment was concluded by passing an order section 143(3) read with section

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

1) of the Act.\n***!\n27. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely\nconcluded that inadequacy of enquiry by the AO with respect to certain claims\nwould not in itself be a reason to invoke the powers enshrined in Section 263\nof the Act. The Revenue in the instant case has not been able to make

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Section 263 of the Act by the ld.PCIT was very much examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings by way of issuance of notice u/s.142(1) of the Act and the reply filed by the assessee thereon inasmuch the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act on the facts of the present case would result

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

1) of the Act. ***’. 27. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded that inadequacy of enquiry by the AO with respect to certain claims would not in itself be a reason to invoke the powers enshrined in Section 263 of the Act. The Revenue in the instant case has not been able to make out a sufficient

ST.JOSEPH'S EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

1) of the Act. ***’. 27. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded that inadequacy of enquiry by the AO with respect to certain claims would not in itself be a reason to invoke the powers enshrined in Section 263 of the Act. The Revenue in the instant case has not been able to make out a sufficient

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

disallowed the\nclaim of interest on debenture of Rs 92,24,44,539/- eligible u/s\n36(1)(vii) of the Act on the ground that debenture cannot be treated at\npar with loan that too as a long term financing instrument and\ntherefore debenture does not partake character of receipt within the\nmeaning of deduction u/s 36(1

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

disallow the claim\nof deduction under Section 80P of the Act to the tune of Rs.10,91,802/- forming\npart of the return of income filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the\nAct without assigning proper reasons and justification.\n9) The PCIT failed to appreciate that there was complete scrutiny of facts referred\nto in the revision