INDIA PISTONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

68,73,550/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of "2,02,62,946/- u/s.14A of the Act, additional depreciation of "41,54,090/- and export promotion expenditure of "21,00,000/-. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), 5. who vide impugned order had partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the issue

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIA PISTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

68,73,550/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of "2,02,62,946/- u/s.14A of the Act, additional depreciation of "41,54,090/- and export promotion expenditure of "21,00,000/-. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), 5. who vide impugned order had partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the issue

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIA PISTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

68,73,550/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of "2,02,62,946/- u/s.14A of the Act, additional depreciation of "41,54,090/- and export promotion expenditure of "21,00,000/-. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), 5. who vide impugned order had partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the issue

NILAA CHARITABLE TRUST,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed." 10. In light of aforesaid provision, if the Trust has not maintained a record of the identity indicating

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,031 Amount spent in excess as service provider Amount spent in excess as service provider 12,85,95,729 Mark-up @ 6.12% 78,70,058 The amount by which the assessee company should have been The amount by which the assessee company should have been 13,64,65,787 reimbursed by A.E, and for which the reimbursed

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

iia) of the Act on the same.\nThe Ld. CIT, DR appearing before us are was unable to controvert the\nsame. We therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the order of\nLd. CIT(A) in this regard and accordingly dismiss this ground of the\nRevenue.\"\n5.2\nThe Ld. CIT, DR was not able to distinguish the above

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

24,52,59,403 – "16,35,06,269) in respect of capital expenditure and "7,20,91,344/- ("21,62,74,033 – "14,41 ,82,689) in respect of revenue expenditure, totaling to "15,38,44,478/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 39.2 In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Commissioner

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

24,52,59,403 – "16,35,06,269) in respect of capital expenditure and "7,20,91,344/- ("21,62,74,033 – "14,41 ,82,689) in respect of revenue expenditure, totaling to "15,38,44,478/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 39.2 In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Commissioner

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

24,52,59,403 – "16,35,06,269) in respect of capital expenditure and "7,20,91,344/- ("21,62,74,033 – "14,41 ,82,689) in respect of revenue expenditure, totaling to "15,38,44,478/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 39.2 In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Commissioner

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

68,77,636/- being 200% of the ITA Nos.554 & 561/Chny/2023 (AY 2018-19) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 3 :: aggregate expenditure u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The AO in the course of assessment, had required the assessee to submit the Form 3CL issued by the DSIR, to which the assessee is noted to have submitted that, the DSIR

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

68,77,636/- being 200% of the ITA Nos.554 & 561/Chny/2023 (AY 2018-19) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 3 :: aggregate expenditure u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The AO in the course of assessment, had required the assessee to submit the Form 3CL issued by the DSIR, to which the assessee is noted to have submitted that, the DSIR

ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATES LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT,CORP. CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAIQ

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

68 of the Act, on the ground that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the assessee did not file necessary certificate in Form 10CCB of the Act along with the return of income, which was filed on 18.7.2005 declaring the income as Rs.1,02,11,036/-. 3. As against the disallowance of the claim, the assessee filed an appeal before

S.P.MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the 1961 Act owing to difference between physical cash found during the course of survey proceedings and the cash in hand as is recorded in audited books of accounts maintained by the assessee as produced before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings ,the Ld.CIT(A) observed that there appears to be shortage of cash in hand

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

24)(iia). 2.7 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Queens Elizabeth Society Vs CIT 372 ITR 699 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and theory of capitation fee referred cannot be equated with the "Corpus donations" in the case of assessee. Since the corpus donations

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

24)(iia). 2.7 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Queens Elizabeth Society Vs CIT 372 ITR 699 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and theory of capitation fee referred cannot be equated with the "Corpus donations" in the case of assessee. Since the corpus donations

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

24)(iia). 2.7 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Queens Elizabeth Society Vs CIT 372 ITR 699 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and theory of capitation fee referred cannot be equated with the "Corpus donations" in the case of assessee. Since the corpus donations

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

24)(iia). 2.7 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Queens Elizabeth Society Vs CIT 372 ITR 699 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and theory of capitation fee referred cannot be equated with the "Corpus donations" in the case of assessee. Since the corpus donations

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

24)(iia). 2.7 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Queens Elizabeth Society Vs CIT 372 ITR 699 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and theory of capitation fee referred cannot be equated with the "Corpus donations" in the case of assessee. Since the corpus donations