ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

35D of the Act and it has to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), in fact, has placed his reliance in India Cements Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 27. The next

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

35D of the Act and it has to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), in fact, has placed his reliance in India Cements Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 27. The next

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

35D of the Act and it has to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), in fact, has placed his reliance in India Cements Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 27. The next

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

35D of the Act and it has to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), in fact, has placed his reliance in India Cements Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 27. The next

SHRIRAM EPC LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2262 & 2263/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Shriram Epc Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 18/03, Rukmani Lakshmipathy V. Income Tax, Road, Company Circle Vi(2), 1St Floor, R.A. Building, Chennai - 600 034. Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan : Aafcs 1410 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 35D of the Act. The question arises for consideration is when the assessee claimed expenditure while filing the return of income and which was either disallowed

SHRIRAM EPC LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2262 & 2263/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Shriram Epc Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 18/03, Rukmani Lakshmipathy V. Income Tax, Road, Company Circle Vi(2), 1St Floor, R.A. Building, Chennai - 600 034. Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan : Aafcs 1410 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 35D of the Act. The question arises for consideration is when the assessee claimed expenditure while filing the return of income and which was either disallowed

ACCEL FRONTLINE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1581/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Accel Frontline Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. 75, Accel House, Nelson Manickam Chennai 600 034. Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca5622M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 35D of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹.1,00,28,477/- and added to the total income of the assessee

DCIT, THANJAVUR vs. S.P.APPARELS, AVANASHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1510/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10

disallowance strictly as per the provisions of Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules. 13. The next ground of appeal of the assessee relates to the deduction under Section 35D

S.P.APPARELS LIMITED,AVANASHI vs. DCIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1510/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10

disallowance strictly as per the provisions of Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules. 13. The next ground of appeal of the assessee relates to the deduction under Section 35D

R.P.P.INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 35D(1), then the same works out to ₹6,10,058/- only. According to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer disallowed

ACIT, ERODE vs. M/S. R.P.P. INFRA PROJECTS LTD., ERODE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 35D(1), then the same works out to ₹6,10,058/- only. According to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer disallowed

THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1346, 1347, 1348 /Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 1999-00, 2000-01, 2005-06

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv). Further to substantiate the claim, supported his argument with judicial decisions and claimed support from the facts of the case of share issue expenses as held in the following cases. (i) CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd (1986) 162 ITR 0819. (ii) CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd (1991) 188 ITR 0151. and requested the Tribunal

THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1346, 1347, 1348 /Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 1999-00, 2000-01, 2005-06

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv). Further to substantiate the claim, supported his argument with judicial decisions and claimed support from the facts of the case of share issue expenses as held in the following cases. (i) CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd (1986) 162 ITR 0819. (ii) CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd (1991) 188 ITR 0151. and requested the Tribunal

THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1346, 1347, 1348 /Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 1999-00, 2000-01, 2005-06

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv). Further to substantiate the claim, supported his argument with judicial decisions and claimed support from the facts of the case of share issue expenses as held in the following cases. (i) CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd (1986) 162 ITR 0819. (ii) CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd (1991) 188 ITR 0151. and requested the Tribunal

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1346, 1347, 1348 /Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 1999-00, 2000-01, 2005-06

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv). Further to substantiate the claim, supported his argument with judicial decisions and claimed support from the facts of the case of share issue expenses as held in the following cases. (i) CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd (1986) 162 ITR 0819. (ii) CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd (1991) 188 ITR 0151. and requested the Tribunal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

35D(2)(c)(iv). 2.2 The basis to arrive at the disallowance amount as 50% of the 'Management and underwriting fees' is arbitrary and unjustified’’. ITA Nos.2825 to 2827, 2834 :- 3 -: to 2839/Mds/2014. The Brief facts of the case are that during the year relevant 3. to the assessment year under consideration the assessee company claimed

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

35D(2)(c)(iv). 2.2 The basis to arrive at the disallowance amount as 50% of the 'Management and underwriting fees' is arbitrary and unjustified’’. ITA Nos.2825 to 2827, 2834 :- 3 -: to 2839/Mds/2014. The Brief facts of the case are that during the year relevant 3. to the assessment year under consideration the assessee company claimed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

35D(2)(c)(iv). 2.2 The basis to arrive at the disallowance amount as 50% of the 'Management and underwriting fees' is arbitrary and unjustified’’. ITA Nos.2825 to 2827, 2834 :- 3 -: to 2839/Mds/2014. The Brief facts of the case are that during the year relevant 3. to the assessment year under consideration the assessee company claimed