THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

viii) of the Act back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 25. Ground No.4 of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Now, we take up the cross-appeal of the Revenue. 27. Revenue has raised 15 grounds. Ground No.1 and 15 are general needing no adjudication. 28. Vide its grounds numbered

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

viii) of the Act back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 25. Ground No.4 of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Now, we take up the cross-appeal of the Revenue. 27. Revenue has raised 15 grounds. Ground No.1 and 15 are general needing no adjudication. 28. Vide its grounds numbered

DCIT, TRICHY vs. M/S. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK. LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

viii) of the Act back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 25. Ground No.4 of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Now, we take up the cross-appeal of the Revenue. 27. Revenue has raised 15 grounds. Ground No.1 and 15 are general needing no adjudication. 28. Vide its grounds numbered

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

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

36,22,227 4. As mentioned at para 3 (vii) above, for denying the exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer had cited certain specific instances which, according to him, attracted the rigours of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. These are listed hereunder:- (i) An agreement for purchase of 22.34 acres of land

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

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

36,22,227 4. As mentioned at para 3 (vii) above, for denying the exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer had cited certain specific instances which, according to him, attracted the rigours of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. These are listed hereunder:- (i) An agreement for purchase of 22.34 acres of land

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

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

36,22,227 4. As mentioned at para 3 (vii) above, for denying the exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer had cited certain specific instances which, according to him, attracted the rigours of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. These are listed hereunder:- (i) An agreement for purchase of 22.34 acres of land

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

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

36,22,227 4. As mentioned at para 3 (vii) above, for denying the exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer had cited certain specific instances which, according to him, attracted the rigours of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. These are listed hereunder:- (i) An agreement for purchase of 22.34 acres of land

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal.

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Housing Development Company vs DCIT, Central Circle-l(l),Bangalore and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in 352 ITA 493Delhi in the case of M/s CIT Vs Anil Kumar Bhatia and the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Thrissur Vs St. Francis Clay Decor Tiles

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI vs. M/S G TECH STONE LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Housing Development Company vs DCIT, Central Circle-l(l),Bangalore and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in 352 ITA 493Delhi in the case of M/s CIT Vs Anil Kumar Bhatia and the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Thrissur Vs St. Francis Clay Decor Tiles

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI vs. M/S G TECH STONE LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Housing Development Company vs DCIT, Central Circle-l(l),Bangalore and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in 352 ITA 493Delhi in the case of M/s CIT Vs Anil Kumar Bhatia and the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Thrissur Vs St. Francis Clay Decor Tiles

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Housing Development Company vs DCIT, Central Circle-l(l),Bangalore and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in 352 ITA 493Delhi in the case of M/s CIT Vs Anil Kumar Bhatia and the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Thrissur Vs St. Francis Clay Decor Tiles

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI vs. M/S G TECH STONE LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Housing Development Company vs DCIT, Central Circle-l(l),Bangalore and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in 352 ITA 493Delhi in the case of M/s CIT Vs Anil Kumar Bhatia and the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Thrissur Vs St. Francis Clay Decor Tiles

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Housing Development Company vs DCIT, Central Circle-l(l),Bangalore and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in 352 ITA 493Delhi in the case of M/s CIT Vs Anil Kumar Bhatia and the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Thrissur Vs St. Francis Clay Decor Tiles

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Housing Development Company vs DCIT, Central Circle-l(l),Bangalore and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in 352 ITA 493Delhi in the case of M/s CIT Vs Anil Kumar Bhatia and the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Thrissur Vs St. Francis Clay Decor Tiles

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI vs. M/S G TECH STONE LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Housing Development Company vs DCIT, Central Circle-l(l),Bangalore and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in 352 ITA 493Delhi in the case of M/s CIT Vs Anil Kumar Bhatia and the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Thrissur Vs St. Francis Clay Decor Tiles

JANET CHRISTINE DEPENNING,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 & 1323/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 Janet Christine Depenning, The Income Tax Officer, 120, Velachery Main Road, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Guindy,Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aebpd 2408L]

property service, which requires patents and trade mark to be registered in various countries. The assessee has engaged foreign associate and paid them without deducting the tax u/s 195 of the Act. The assessee has argued that the foreign associates are predominantly individuals and in some cases are body corporate and these services rendered are either professional services or business