DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

11 Taxmann.com 100/199 Taxman 341//20127 340 ITR 14 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act is not attracted if the recipient is not a shareholder: (b) The decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions (India

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKILANSTRUCTURALS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

11 Taxmann.com 100/199 Taxman 341//20127 340 ITR 14 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act is not attracted if the recipient is not a shareholder: (b) The decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions (India

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKUNDA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

11 Taxmann.com 100/199 Taxman 341//20127 340 ITR 14 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act is not attracted if the recipient is not a shareholder: (b) The decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions (India

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MAC QUALITY BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

11 Taxmann.com 100/199 Taxman 341//20127 340 ITR 14 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act is not attracted if the recipient is not a shareholder: (b) The decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions (India

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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)

Section 32(1). Therefore, the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which held that the expenditure so incurred is not in the capital field, would mean that the 53 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 expenditure is in the revenue field and therefore, the same, in fact, would support the case of the assessee

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)

Section 32(1). Therefore, the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which held that the expenditure so incurred is not in the capital field, would mean that the 53 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 expenditure is in the revenue field and therefore, the same, in fact, would support the case of the assessee

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)

Section 32(1). Therefore, the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which held that the expenditure so incurred is not in the capital field, would mean that the 53 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 expenditure is in the revenue field and therefore, the same, in fact, would support the case of the assessee

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

11. The appellant vide letter dated 14.07.2016 and submissions dated 18.06.2016 (Page 2 of the assessment order) stated that the appellant had received interest free refundable deposits of Rs.10 Cr. a. The appellant contended that the provisions of Section 2(47) (v) are not applicable as the actual transfer of property as per section 53A of 42 I.T.A