MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

1, Chennai dated 15.03.2019 relevant to the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The only common effective ground raised by the Revenue for all the assessment years relates to apportioning the intermingled common expenditure with relation to business income and let out property income in the ratio of 50:50 without valid basis. 2 I.T.A

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

1, Chennai dated 15.03.2019 relevant to the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The only common effective ground raised by the Revenue for all the assessment years relates to apportioning the intermingled common expenditure with relation to business income and let out property income in the ratio of 50:50 without valid basis. 2 I.T.A

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

1, Chennai dated 15.03.2019 relevant to the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The only common effective ground raised by the Revenue for all the assessment years relates to apportioning the intermingled common expenditure with relation to business income and let out property income in the ratio of 50:50 without valid basis. 2 I.T.A

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

1, Chennai dated 15.03.2019 relevant to the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The only common effective ground raised by the Revenue for all the assessment years relates to apportioning the intermingled common expenditure with relation to business income and let out property income in the ratio of 50:50 without valid basis. 2 I.T.A

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

131 for AYs-2015-16 and 2018-19. He submits that the assessee had purchased property for construction of school during AY-2016-17 evidencing the same he drew attention to the pages 30 to 70 of the paper book. He argued having purchased the land the assessee has been setting apart the funds for construction of the school building

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

131 for AYs-2015-16 and 2018-19. He submits that the assessee had purchased property for construction of school during AY-2016-17 evidencing the same he drew attention to the pages 30 to 70 of the paper book. He argued having purchased the land the assessee has been setting apart the funds for construction of the school building

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

131/-. He also had a land in Neelankarai which was sold and a house property was purchased in Kodaikanal. 15. Under Section 22 of the Act, any income from any buildings, irrespective of which the use which has to be treated under the head "income from house property". Therefore, the Revenue cannot take above all the terminology use in clause

ITO, NON-COPORATE WARD-19(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI.GOMATHINAYAGAM RATHINASABAPATHY, EKKADUTHANGAL CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property 116 13.12.2022 Appeal Hearing notice issued by the first 117 appellate authority 18.12.2022 Response filed before the first appellate 123 authority 14.12.2019 Response to the show cause notice dated 126 11.12.2019 issued during assessment proceedings R. Sivasubramanian V. Income Tax Officer, 131 Ward 1(1), Salem Income Tax Appellate tribunal, Chennai Bench –ITA No 01/Mds/2013 Supplementary response filed before

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

131 ITD 385- IT AT Chennai). Ground No 2: The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding he disallowance of depreciation in excess of 15% claimed on computer software for which the new appendix 1 of the Income tax Rules prescribe 60% depreciation. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that software is entitled to 60% depreciation and when

HARITA FEHRER LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (2),, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

131 ITD 385- IT AT Chennai). Ground No 2: The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding he disallowance of depreciation in excess of 15% claimed on computer software for which the new appendix 1 of the Income tax Rules prescribe 60% depreciation. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that software is entitled to 60% depreciation and when

HARITA FEHRER LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT SALARY CIRCLE II , CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

131 ITD 385- IT AT Chennai). Ground No 2: The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding he disallowance of depreciation in excess of 15% claimed on computer software for which the new appendix 1 of the Income tax Rules prescribe 60% depreciation. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that software is entitled to 60% depreciation and when

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

131 ITD 385- IT AT Chennai). Ground No 2: The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding he disallowance of depreciation in excess of 15% claimed on computer software for which the new appendix 1 of the Income tax Rules prescribe 60% depreciation. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that software is entitled to 60% depreciation and when

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAJKUMARI , CHENNAI

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

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

house property, capital gains claimed under the head ‘capital gain’ and deductions claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act. We noted that the assessment order in this case was framed by AO only on 20.12.2019 but it was under mistaken notion or mistaken belief or may be under new technical effect of cut paste has pasted the relevant assessment order

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

131 ITR St 23) which P a g e 6 | 23 Assessment Year : 2008-09 explained the object of introduction of section 80-1 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 where similar provisions are enshrined. The relevant part is reproduced for ready reference and clarity: "Deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings, etc., established after

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

131 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee has not deducted TDS on the sale of prepaid recharge coupons as required under section 194H of the Act and the details are as under: Name of the assessee Financial Asstt. Amount year Year Vodafone Cellular Limited