CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(OSD),CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI vs. IDFC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act. Therefore, the A.O has disallowed the claim after due verification. The Hon’ble Apex Court while confirming the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India has observed as under: "....., we find that, prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could

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

36(1)(iii) for Rs.61.85 Lacs. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could 5 ITA 537 to 539 & 580 to 583/Chny/2018 & ITA 3053/Chny/2017 be gathered that while making the additions, Ld. AO has not referred to any incriminating material as found during the course of search operations with respect to these two disallowances. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings

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

36(1)(iii) for Rs.61.85 Lacs. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could 5 ITA 537 to 539 & 580 to 583/Chny/2018 & ITA 3053/Chny/2017 be gathered that while making the additions, Ld. AO has not referred to any incriminating material as found during the course of search operations with respect to these two disallowances. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings

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

36(1)(iii) for Rs.61.85 Lacs. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could 5 ITA 537 to 539 & 580 to 583/Chny/2018 & ITA 3053/Chny/2017 be gathered that while making the additions, Ld. AO has not referred to any incriminating material as found during the course of search operations with respect to these two disallowances. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings

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

36(1)(iii) for Rs.61.85 Lacs. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could 5 ITA 537 to 539 & 580 to 583/Chny/2018 & ITA 3053/Chny/2017 be gathered that while making the additions, Ld. AO has not referred to any incriminating material as found during the course of search operations with respect to these two disallowances. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings

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

36(1)(iii) for Rs.61.85 Lacs. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could 5 ITA 537 to 539 & 580 to 583/Chny/2018 & ITA 3053/Chny/2017 be gathered that while making the additions, Ld. AO has not referred to any incriminating material as found during the course of search operations with respect to these two disallowances. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings

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

36(1)(iii) for Rs.61.85 Lacs. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could 5 ITA 537 to 539 & 580 to 583/Chny/2018 & ITA 3053/Chny/2017 be gathered that while making the additions, Ld. AO has not referred to any incriminating material as found during the course of search operations with respect to these two disallowances. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings

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

36(1)(iii) for Rs.61.85 Lacs. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could 5 ITA 537 to 539 & 580 to 583/Chny/2018 & ITA 3053/Chny/2017 be gathered that while making the additions, Ld. AO has not referred to any incriminating material as found during the course of search operations with respect to these two disallowances. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings

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

36(1)(iii) for Rs.61.85 Lacs. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could 5 ITA 537 to 539 & 580 to 583/Chny/2018 & ITA 3053/Chny/2017 be gathered that while making the additions, Ld. AO has not referred to any incriminating material as found during the course of search operations with respect to these two disallowances. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act. Therefore, the A.O has disallowed the claim after due verification. The Hon’ble Apex Court while confirming the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India has observed as under: "....., we find that, prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act. Therefore, the A.O has disallowed the claim after due verification. The Hon’ble Apex Court while confirming the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India has observed as under: "....., we find that, prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could

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

1.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable

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

1.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable