ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

94,449 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Hire Chagres Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on 34,50,866 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Labour Chagres Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on 11,76,000 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Other

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

94,449 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Hire Chagres Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on 34,50,866 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Labour Chagres Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on 11,76,000 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Other

ALBERT & CO. P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1) , CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

94,449 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Hire Chagres Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on 34,50,866 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Labour Chagres Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on 11,76,000 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Other

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

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) was correct and justified in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A being expenditure incurred to earn exempt income while computing the profits u/s 115JB? 5. Whether ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book profits overlooking Expl

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

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) was correct and justified in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A being expenditure incurred to earn exempt income while computing the profits u/s 115JB? 5. Whether ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book profits overlooking Expl

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) was correct and justified in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A being expenditure incurred to earn exempt income while computing the profits u/s 115JB? 5. Whether ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book profits overlooking Expl

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) was correct and justified in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A being expenditure incurred to earn exempt income while computing the profits u/s 115JB? 5. Whether ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to book profits overlooking Expl

BHARAT ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 905/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bharat Engineering The Assistant Commissioner Of Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 1A, Jhaver Plaza,6Th Floor, Corporate Circle -1(2), Nungambakkam High Road, No. 121, Nungambakkam High Chennai – 600 034. Road, Nungambakkam, [Pan: Aaccb-8705-G] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

section 80 (IA) and also binding decisions of the ITAT, CBDT Circular and High Court decisions cited before him. 3. The learned AO had erred in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80-lA without verifying the documents of the Appellant who has entered into agreement with the Government Authorities for claim of exemption for infrastructure facilities before disallowing the same

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ESHWARNATH CONSTRUCTION, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

94 ITJ(Mum) 646 and ACIT vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd., reported in 123 ITJ 689. 6 I.T.A. Nos.1985 & 1986/Chny/2013 & 1737/Chny/2018 3) Decision of ITAT in the case of Mahalaxmi Construction by following the decision of Third Member Bench in the case of M/s. B.T.Patil & Sons Belgaum Constructions P. Ltd., vs. ACIT, 126 ITJ (Mum) (TM) 577. 4) Decision of ITAT

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S EASWARNATH CONSTRUCTIONS, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

94 ITJ(Mum) 646 and ACIT vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd., reported in 123 ITJ 689. 6 I.T.A. Nos.1985 & 1986/Chny/2013 & 1737/Chny/2018 3) Decision of ITAT in the case of Mahalaxmi Construction by following the decision of Third Member Bench in the case of M/s. B.T.Patil & Sons Belgaum Constructions P. Ltd., vs. ACIT, 126 ITJ (Mum) (TM) 577. 4) Decision of ITAT

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ESHWARNATH CONSTRUCTION, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

94 ITJ(Mum) 646 and ACIT vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd., reported in 123 ITJ 689. 6 I.T.A. Nos.1985 & 1986/Chny/2013 & 1737/Chny/2018 3) Decision of ITAT in the case of Mahalaxmi Construction by following the decision of Third Member Bench in the case of M/s. B.T.Patil & Sons Belgaum Constructions P. Ltd., vs. ACIT, 126 ITJ (Mum) (TM) 577. 4) Decision of ITAT

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

disallowed the entire claim of ₹7,73,42,493 under Section 35(2AB) on the ground that DSIR approval in Form 3CL was not furnished. On appeal, CIT(A) directed the allowance of weighted deduction as per the DSIR certificate but decided that excess claim over and above the eligible amount as per DSIR certificate of Rs. 87.73 lakhs cannot

SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3254/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 4, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 28.08.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) The Order Of The Cit{A) In I.T.A.No.16 1201-1-181 Cit(A)-15 Dated 28.08.2018 Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case. 2) The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Part Of The Disallowance Made U/S14A R.W. Rule 8D 3) The Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Entire Dividend Income Received From Mutual Fund Of Rs.29,98,544 Was Credited To 2

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, in the assessment order, on perusal of the financials of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee has investments of ₹.14,64,94,400/-. The assessee has received a dividend income of ₹.29,98,544/- and has disallowed expenses to the tune of ₹.4

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 92B of the Act. 3.2 Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. TPO have erred in charging the guarantee commission on the opening balance of outstanding guarantee value.” 4. The Ld. counsel as well as Ld. CIT-DR agreed that the facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the years and hence, we take the facts from

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 92B of the Act. 3.2 Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. TPO have erred in charging the guarantee commission on the opening balance of outstanding guarantee value.” 4. The Ld. counsel as well as Ld. CIT-DR agreed that the facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the years and hence, we take the facts from

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

4 (Gau) that where the genuineness and regularity of the accounts have not been challenged, the accounts are prima facie proof of the entries and the correctness thereof under section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 8. Regarding business lull, it was submitted that the assessee could not carry on its business, owing to factors beyond its control, as already

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

4 (Gau) that where the genuineness and regularity of the accounts have not been challenged, the accounts are prima facie proof of the entries and the correctness thereof under section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 8. Regarding business lull, it was submitted that the assessee could not carry on its business, owing to factors beyond its control, as already

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].

94,078/-. Hence, there is a short disallowance under section 14A of the Act amounts to ₹.3,01,70,930/-, which was not considered in the original assessment 4