DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), , CHENNAI vs. SRI VEKKALIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2722/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Sri Vekkaliamman Educational Income Tax, Vs. & Charitable Trust, (Exemptions) No.10, East Mada Church Street, Chennai Circle, Royapuram, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 013. [Pan Aafts 7863Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under Section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for C.A. No. 7186/ 2014 etc. charitable purposes, the assessees had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant of depreciation would amount to giving double benefit

BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3342/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Bannariamman Educational Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Trust, Income Tax, No.1212, Trichy Road, Exemptions, Coimbatore 641 018. Coimbatore. [Pan Aaatb 1235C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under Section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for C.A. No. 7186/ 2014 etc. charitable purposes, the assessees had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant of depreciation would amount to giving double benefit

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. VALLIAMMAI SOCIETY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 440/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.48/Chny/2017 (In Ita No.440/Chny/2017) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013

disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under Section 32 of the Act was that :- 12 -: & CO 48/2017 once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for C.A. No. 7186/ 2014 etc. charitable purposes, the assessees had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant of depreciation would amount

DCIT EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE vs. SAVEETHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL AND TECHNICAL SCIENCES, ERODE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2989/ Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs M/S. Saveetha Institute Of Medical The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Technical Sciences, Exemptions, No.333, Saveetha Hospital Coimbatore. Building, Brough Road, Erode – 638 001. Pan: Aafts0845L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.13,74,55,584/- because the cost of the asset purchased was allowed as application of income while determining the income of the assessee for the purpose of Sec.11 of the Act. While doing so, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions

S.ARJUN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD 20(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer. Now before us, the ld. Authorised Representative strongly 5. assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that assessee had specifically claimed before the lower authorities that the claim, alternatively had to be allowed as a business loss. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the advances having being given to a company which

VENTURE LIGHTING INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, considering the factual matrix in the instant case, material available on record and the judicial precedence discussed above, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2945 & 2946/Chny/2018 & 1209/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2010-11 The Acit / Dcit, M/S. Venture Lighting India Limited, Corporate Circle – 3(2), V. Plot No.A-30, D5, Phase-Ii, Chennai. Zone-B, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. Pan: Aaaca 9284H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal, Am: The Two Appeals In Ita Nos. 2945 & 2946/Chny/2018 By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai In Ita Nos.112/16-17 & 160/17-18, Dated 29.09.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Acit / Dcit, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai For The Assessment Years 2012-13 &

43C, as meaning actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis on which profits or gains are computed under Section 28/29. That is why in deciding the question as to whether the word “expenditure” in Section 37(1) includes the word “loss” one has to read Section 37(1) with Section 28, Section

VENTURE LIGHTING INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, considering the factual matrix in the instant case, material available on record and the judicial precedence discussed above, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2945 & 2946/Chny/2018 & 1209/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2010-11 The Acit / Dcit, M/S. Venture Lighting India Limited, Corporate Circle – 3(2), V. Plot No.A-30, D5, Phase-Ii, Chennai. Zone-B, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. Pan: Aaaca 9284H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal, Am: The Two Appeals In Ita Nos. 2945 & 2946/Chny/2018 By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai In Ita Nos.112/16-17 & 160/17-18, Dated 29.09.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Acit / Dcit, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai For The Assessment Years 2012-13 &

43C, as meaning actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis on which profits or gains are computed under Section 28/29. That is why in deciding the question as to whether the word “expenditure” in Section 37(1) includes the word “loss” one has to read Section 37(1) with Section 28, Section

VENTURE LIGHTING INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, considering the factual matrix in the instant case, material available on record and the judicial precedence discussed above, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2945 & 2946/Chny/2018 & 1209/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2010-11 The Acit / Dcit, M/S. Venture Lighting India Limited, Corporate Circle – 3(2), V. Plot No.A-30, D5, Phase-Ii, Chennai. Zone-B, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. Pan: Aaaca 9284H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal, Am: The Two Appeals In Ita Nos. 2945 & 2946/Chny/2018 By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai In Ita Nos.112/16-17 & 160/17-18, Dated 29.09.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Acit / Dcit, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai For The Assessment Years 2012-13 &

43C, as meaning actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis on which profits or gains are computed under Section 28/29. That is why in deciding the question as to whether the word “expenditure” in Section 37(1) includes the word “loss” one has to read Section 37(1) with Section 28, Section

A.MUJAHIDUR RAHMAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

disallowance of 50% of expenditure was not fair. 5. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. According to him, Section 44AD of the Act had no application to a person carrying on a profession. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the 6. orders of the authorities below. For a claim

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BUHARI HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

disallowances. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the disqualification of Tonnage Tax Scheme under section 115VP(3) of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, as well as, by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) allowed

THE ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BUHARI HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

disallowances. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the disqualification of Tonnage Tax Scheme under section 115VP(3) of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, as well as, by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) allowed

TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of the provision for bad debt was concerned, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee was unable to work out such provision in accordance with Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act due to paucity of time. According to him, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) himself had pointed out that if assessee was able to show the provision to have

TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of the provision for bad debt was concerned, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee was unable to work out such provision in accordance with Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act due to paucity of time. According to him, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) himself had pointed out that if assessee was able to show the provision to have

TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of the provision for bad debt was concerned, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee was unable to work out such provision in accordance with Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act due to paucity of time. According to him, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) himself had pointed out that if assessee was able to show the provision to have