AMIT KAPOOR,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property and capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account

SAMIAPPAGOUNDER DHARMARAJ,TIRUPUR vs. ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property and capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account

ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI vs. SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

392 ITR 155(Madras) while deciding in favour of the assessee.However, now Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in a very recent decision in the case of Zylog Systems Limited v. ITO in TCA No. 2184 and 2185 of 2006, vide judgment dated 23.04.2019 ( reported in (2019) 415 ITR 311(Mad.) has affirmed the view held by Hon’ble Karanataka High

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

house property of Rs.7,000/– and\nincome from other sources of Rs.14,826/-. The case was selected for limited\nscrutiny assessment for verification of the following issues: -\ni. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income\nii. Share capital/capital\n6. Consequently, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2018,\nfollowed by multiple notices u/s.142(1) of the Act.\n7. During

VICTUS DYEINGS ,TIRUPUR vs. ACIT , CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR

392, held the incentives provided\nby the Government of India for exploring the new markets across the\nglobe and given to the assessee is not for running the business profitably\nbut for expanding the market area, is a capital receipt, cannot be treated\nas income either under section 2(24) or section 28 of the Act. Further, the\nsame finding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING P LTD, TIRUPPUR,TAMILNADU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

392, held the incentives provided by the Government of India for exploring the new markets across the globe and given to the assessee is not for running the business profitably but for expanding the market area, is a capital receipt, cannot be treated as income either under section 2(24) or section 28 of the Act. Further, the same finding

SAN TEX INC.,TIRUPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPUR

392, held the incentives provided\nby the Government of India for exploring the new markets across the\nglobe and given to the assessee is not for running the business profitably\nbut for expanding the market area, is a capital receipt, cannot be treated\nas income either under section 2(24) or section 28 of the Act. Further, the\nsame finding

GEENA GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

392, held the incentives provided by the Government of India for exploring the new markets across the globe and given to the assessee is not for running the business profitably but for expanding the market area, is a capital receipt, cannot be treated as income either under section 2(24) or section 28 of the Act. Further, the same finding

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LTD., TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

392, held the incentives provided by the Government of India for exploring the new markets across the globe and given to the assessee is not for running the business profitably but for expanding the market area, is a capital receipt, cannot be treated as income either under section 2(24) or section 28 of the Act. Further, the same finding

GATES WEARS,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPPUR

In the result, ITA Nos. 3326/Chny/2019, 326/Chny/2024 &\n768/Chny/2022 are dismissed; ITA No

392, held the incentives provided\nby the Government of India for exploring the new markets across the\nglobe and given to the assessee is not for running the business profitably\nbut for expanding the market area, is a capital receipt, cannot be treated\nas income either under section 2(24) or section 28 of the Act. Further, the\nsame finding

KM KNIT WEAR,TIRUPUR vs. ADIT,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos. 3326/Chny/2019, 326/Chny/2024 &\n768/Chny/2022 are dismissed; ITA No

392, held the incentives provided\nby the Government of India for exploring the new markets across the\nglobe and given to the assessee is not for running the business profitably\nbut for expanding the market area, is a capital receipt, cannot be treated\nas income either under section 2(24) or section 28 of the Act. Further, the\nsame finding

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

392/- from BCCI. The assessee has also received Indian Premier League subsidy to the extent `8.02 Crores which amounts to 25% of its gross receipts. According to the Ld. D.R., Indian Premier League matches are high value commercial ventures, the players are sold on auction publicly, the individual players are sold in a heavy price tag. According

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

392/- from BCCI. The assessee has also received Indian Premier League subsidy to the extent `8.02 Crores which amounts to 25% of its gross receipts. According to the Ld. D.R., Indian Premier League matches are high value commercial ventures, the players are sold on auction publicly, the individual players are sold in a heavy price tag. According

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

392/- from BCCI. The assessee has also received Indian Premier League subsidy to the extent `8.02 Crores which amounts to 25% of its gross receipts. According to the Ld. D.R., Indian Premier League matches are high value commercial ventures, the players are sold on auction publicly, the individual players are sold in a heavy price tag. According

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House Property and Income from other Sources for AY 1998-98. The Hon’ble Court confirmed the stand of Tribunal and held that the intention of the legislature appearing from the amendment made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 is that the depreciation unabsorbed or otherwise or current would be set off against the income arising from business

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House Property and Income from other Sources for AY 1998-98. The Hon’ble Court confirmed the stand of Tribunal and held that the intention of the legislature appearing from the amendment made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 is that the depreciation unabsorbed or otherwise or current would be set off against the income arising from business

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House Property and Income from other Sources for AY 1998-98. The Hon’ble Court confirmed the stand of Tribunal and held that the intention of the legislature appearing from the amendment made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 is that the depreciation unabsorbed or otherwise or current would be set off against the income arising from business

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House Property and Income from other Sources for AY 1998-98. The Hon’ble Court confirmed the stand of Tribunal and held that the intention of the legislature appearing from the amendment made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 is that the depreciation unabsorbed or otherwise or current would be set off against the income arising from business