ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

8 (MP) ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 29 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells 5.6. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully

M/S RATNA CAFE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 9, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

255, Triplicane High Road, v. Non-Corporate Circle-9, Chennai – 600 005. Chennai. PAN: AAAFR 0842B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12.01.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 21.01.2022 आदेश

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

255 ITR 220 (P&H) and in the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Tranvancore Cements Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 170 (Ker). This line of authority would now cease to reflect the correct position in law by virtue of the amendment which has been brought in by the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

255 ITR 220 (P&H) and in the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Tranvancore Cements Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 170 (Ker). This line of authority would now cease to reflect the correct position in law by virtue of the amendment which has been brought in by the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

255 ITR 220 (P&H) and in the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Tranvancore Cements Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 170 (Ker). This line of authority would now cease to reflect the correct position in law by virtue of the amendment which has been brought in by the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

255 ITR 220 (P&H) and in the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Tranvancore Cements Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 170 (Ker). This line of authority would now cease to reflect the correct position in law by virtue of the amendment which has been brought in by the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD., CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

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

255 ITR 220, found that Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the making of assessment or reassessment on the grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. Referring to Explanation 3 to Section 147

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

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

255 ITR 220, found that Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the making of assessment or reassessment on the grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. Referring to Explanation 3 to Section 147

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

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

255 ITR 220, found that Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the making of assessment or reassessment on the grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. Referring to Explanation 3 to Section 147

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

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

255 ITR 220, found that Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the making of assessment or reassessment on the grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. Referring to Explanation 3 to Section 147

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD., NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATIONLIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ITO, CUDDALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

255 ITR 77 (Ker) (6) CIT vs Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) (7) CIT vs. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1

147 / 148 themselves are not supported by valid legal authority, consequent reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of nullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view that the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed. We therefore quash the proceedings u/s 148 as being

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

255 ITR 510. The same has to be brought to tax. 2. The assessee had claimed Rs.158,78,70,585 as investment written off by amortization while computing the total income. The Investment written off is not an allowable expenditure hence it is required to be withdrawn. It was clearly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

255 ITR 510. The same has to be brought to tax. 2. The assessee had claimed Rs.158,78,70,585 as investment written off by amortization while computing the total income. The Investment written off is not an allowable expenditure hence it is required to be withdrawn. It was clearly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya