SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

disallowance under Section 14 A at ₹25,92,856/-. IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 10 -: On appeal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TRIVITRON HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.462/Mds/2016 "नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 36(1)(iii) and hence pleaded that the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and the order of the AO be restored. 4. Per contra, the AR inviting our attention to the relevant portion of the assessment order and the order of the CIT (A) submitted that the A O has disallowed Rs 10,92

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)

92,03,729/-. For this, the assessee has raised following ground:- “3. a) The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance u/s 40A(3) partly by holding that the provisions of that section

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)

92,03,729/-. For this, the assessee has raised following ground:- “3. a) The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance u/s 40A(3) partly by holding that the provisions of that section

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

92,00,000/-. Therefore, according to him, disallowance . Therefore, according to him, disallowance u/s.14A u/s.14A r.w.r.8D r.w.r.8D was was required. required. The The AO AO accordi accordingly ngly computed computed disallowance of Rs.8,28,74,299/ disallowance of Rs.8,28,74,299/- under Rule 8D. Having regard to the under Rule 8D. Having regard to the fact that the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11 Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax, Development Finance Company Circle-Ii(3), Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.878/Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Development Finance Company Vs. Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : Shri Farookh V. Irani, Advocate : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024

disallowance, if any, made under Rule 8D(2) was to be computed on the basis of the Rule 8D(2) which was substituted w.e.f 02.06.2016 by the Income-tax (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act- Interest on Debenture- Rs. 92

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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

disallowance, if any, made under Rule 8D(2) was to be computed on the basis of the Rule 8D(2) which was substituted w.e.f 02.06.2016 by the Income-tax (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act- Interest on Debenture- Rs. 92

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. IDFC LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

disallowance, if any, made under Rule 8D(2) was to be computed on the basis of the Rule 8D(2) which was substituted w.e.f 02.06.2016 by the Income-tax (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act- Interest on Debenture- Rs. 92

ABT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

92,41,003/- during the year. The assessee also had total asset for ₹.814,27,46,778/-. Thus, the correct amount of disallowance under section

ABT LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

92,41,003/- during the year. The assessee also had total asset for ₹.814,27,46,778/-. Thus, the correct amount of disallowance under section

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

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. The terms of section

M/S. XS REAL PROPERTIES PVT LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 41 & 42/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Xs Real Properties P. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 12, South Mada Street, Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai. Chennai 600 015. [Pan:Aaacx0030G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Both Dated 28.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D for the assessment year 2014-15 is concerned, the Assessing Officer has observed that the investment balance as on 01.04.2013 was ₹.28,92

M/S. XS REAL PROPERTIES PVT LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 41 & 42/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Xs Real Properties P. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 12, South Mada Street, Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai. Chennai 600 015. [Pan:Aaacx0030G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Both Dated 28.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D for the assessment year 2014-15 is concerned, the Assessing Officer has observed that the investment balance as on 01.04.2013 was ₹.28,92

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), it is to be further shown as to how the interest income belongs to the PE. The mere existence of the PE cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the interest income belongs to the PE. While on this issue, we may usefully refer to the following observations made by a coordinate bench

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), it is to be further shown as to how the interest income belongs to the PE. The mere existence of the PE cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the interest income belongs to the PE. While on this issue, we may usefully refer to the following observations made by a coordinate bench

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), it is to be further shown as to how the interest income belongs to the PE. The mere existence of the PE cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the interest income belongs to the PE. While on this issue, we may usefully refer to the following observations made by a coordinate bench