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)

3. assessment year 2009-10, claimed various expenses, like architect fee etc of "17,70,000/- - without deducting any TDS and also made short deduction of TDS on expenses to the extent of "13,74,438/--. Hence, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the same. On appeal before

M.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, ITO, CHENNAI vs. GREENPEACE ENVIRONMENT TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 406/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Greenpeace Environment Trust, Exemptions, Ward-1, Vs. New No.49, Old No.23, Chennai. Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan:Aaatg-3538-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

3) (e) cannot be invoked. The prerequisites of the entitlement to 20% profits is not met in the case of the Appellant and GPIS. II. SECTIONS 13(1)(c) and 13(2) 4. Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) are inapplicable to the expenses of Rs.91.37 lakhs and Rs.1.44 lakhs disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

section 80IA(3)(ii) based on the facts proved through the additional evidence. The AO did not agree with the legal contentions of the assesseethat no disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4

T.RAJENDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2032/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

4,73,65,001/- and the particulars of cash transactions are tabulated in para 3 of assessment order. The AO, called upon the assessee to explain as to why cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/- shall not be disallowed u/s. :-5-: ITA. No: 2032/Chny/2019 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

VIRUDHUNAGAR CENTRAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Shri Abraham P. George & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-2014. The Virudhunagar District Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tds Ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [Pan Aaaau 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the corresponding expenditure with the finding that the assessee was liable to deduct tax in view of specific clause (viia) of 194A(3). This stand has been upheld by Hon‟ble ITAT with following observations: ITA Nos.2055 & 2056/2014. :- 34 -: a) The AO categorically brought out material on record to prove that the assesse bank

VIRUDHUNAGAR CENTRAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Shri Abraham P. George & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-2014. The Virudhunagar District Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tds Ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [Pan Aaaau 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the corresponding expenditure with the finding that the assessee was liable to deduct tax in view of specific clause (viia) of 194A(3). This stand has been upheld by Hon‟ble ITAT with following observations: ITA Nos.2055 & 2056/2014. :- 34 -: a) The AO categorically brought out material on record to prove that the assesse bank

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaact-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Five Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Id.Cit(A)”]. The Impugned Orders Of The Id.Cit(A) Arise Out Of The Assessment Orders Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], In Respect Of The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18. The Particulars Of The Respective Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Set Out Hereinbelow:- S. No

4) of the Act, the AO concluded that such expenses were in contravention of section 40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

4) of the Act, the AO concluded that such expenses were in contravention of section 40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed

DCIT, OOTY vs. N.PURUSHOTHAMAN, COIMBATORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.76/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.76/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

4. The common issue in these cross appeals, one by the Revenue and one by the assessee is as regards to order of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance at Rs.25 lakhs being 7.5% of total development expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs.3,29,86,128/-, whereas the Assessing Officer has disallowed expenses by invoking

N.PURUSHOTHAMAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.76/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.76/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

4. The common issue in these cross appeals, one by the Revenue and one by the assessee is as regards to order of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance at Rs.25 lakhs being 7.5% of total development expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs.3,29,86,128/-, whereas the Assessing Officer has disallowed expenses by invoking

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KHIVRAJ AUTOMOBILES & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1176, 1177 & 1178/Mds/2015 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 80IA(3)(ii). 2.4 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the findings of the AO that as the assessee is not the owner of the windmills, he runs the windmills in the status of a works contractor and hence not eligible for Deduction u/s. 80IA(4). 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. K.A.INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1176, 1177 & 1178/Mds/2015 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 80IA(3)(ii). 2.4 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the findings of the AO that as the assessee is not the owner of the windmills, he runs the windmills in the status of a works contractor and hence not eligible for Deduction u/s. 80IA(4). 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KHIVRAJ AUTOMOBILES & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1176, 1177 & 1178/Mds/2015 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 80IA(3)(ii). 2.4 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the findings of the AO that as the assessee is not the owner of the windmills, he runs the windmills in the status of a works contractor and hence not eligible for Deduction u/s. 80IA(4). 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

section 801A(3)(ii) based on the facts proved through the additional evidence. The AO did not agree with the legal contentions of the assesseethat no disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4

CLASSIC LINENS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD), COMPANY RANGE-I,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3341/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Classic Linens International Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Unit 13 & 14, Sdf, Ii Phase Vs. Income Tax, Osd, Company Range-I, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabcc3510F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Raghunathan & Shri S. Sankar Narayanan, Advocates ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 30.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Deduction Of ₹.52,61,428/- Claimed Under Section 10Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

4, Chennai, dated 30.09.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. The effective ground raised in the appeal of the assessee relates to confirmation of disallowance of deduction of ₹.52,61,428/- claimed under section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No. 3341/Chny/19 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

disallowing a sum of Rs.47,19,678/- under section 10AA on the grounds that an undertaking which has already availed the benefit before the commencement of the SEZ Act 2005, the deduction referred to in section 10A for the ten consecutive assessment years, such unit shall not be eligible for deduction from income in this section. 3. The company

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.DHANASEKARAN, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

3) on 27.12.2011 after making the disallowance of section 80-IA which was claimed as exemption of "18,45,450/- to the returned income. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the assessee is not a works contractor and a developer as stipulated u/s.80IA(4

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.DHANASEKARAN, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

3) on 27.12.2011 after making the disallowance of section 80-IA which was claimed as exemption of "18,45,450/- to the returned income. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the assessee is not a works contractor and a developer as stipulated u/s.80IA(4