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

234D and levy correct amount of interest. 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 22. Now, coming to Revenue’s appeal I.T.A.No.2077/Mds/2016, the only issue is addition made by the Assessing Officer towards advance fee of 64,39,989/-. 23. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee is following the cash

PANDIAN HARI,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 11(40, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2598/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pandian Hari, The Income Tax Officer, 75/151 I Om Sri Sairam Plaza, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 11(4), Thambuchetty Street, Chennai Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. Pan: Acfph 7870Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. :- 2 -: 2. The prayer raised read as follows:- 1. Delete the addition of ₹40,44,000/- sustained u/s 68, 2. Delete the consequential tax u/s 115BBE and interest levied u/ss 234A, 234B, 234D

SHANMUGASUNDARAM VENKATACHALAPATHY,TIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68,909 has been deposited out of the retained earnings and cash balance available with the Appellant. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned AO without appreciating the fact that a sum of Rs. 16,95,000 has been deposited out of the contribution received from his spouse out of her income

SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2012-13

234D of the Act on the excess amount refunded to the assessee while processing a return under Section 143(1) of the Act. Even though it is an interest levied on the amount refunded to the assessee, in fact, it is an interest for delayed payment of tax. In other words, the amount refunded to the assessee while processing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2012-13

234D of the Act on the excess amount refunded to the assessee while processing a return under Section 143(1) of the Act. Even though it is an interest levied on the amount refunded to the assessee, in fact, it is an interest for delayed payment of tax. In other words, the amount refunded to the assessee while processing

V S TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(5), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

234D of the IT Act. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in not quashing the action of the Ld. AO of initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the IT Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

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

section 234D, the date of assessment is relevant and not the year of assessment therefore/ when once the regular assessment is completed after the amended proviso of law (i. e 1.6.2003) came into operation the assessee is liable to pay interest on the refunded amount as contemplated u/s 234D of the Act. 4. After hearing both the parties

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

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

section 234D, the date of assessment is relevant and not the year of assessment therefore/ when once the regular assessment is completed after the amended proviso of law (i. e 1.6.2003) came into operation the assessee is liable to pay interest on the refunded amount as contemplated u/s 234D of the Act. 4. After hearing both the parties

SUNDRAM FASTENERS LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ADDL.CIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

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

section 234D, the date of assessment is relevant and not the year of assessment therefore/ when once the regular assessment is completed after the amended proviso of law (i. e 1.6.2003) came into operation the assessee is liable to pay interest on the refunded amount as contemplated u/s 234D of the Act. 4. After hearing both the parties

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SUNDARAM FASTERNERS LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

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

section 234D, the date of assessment is relevant and not the year of assessment therefore/ when once the regular assessment is completed after the amended proviso of law (i. e 1.6.2003) came into operation the assessee is liable to pay interest on the refunded amount as contemplated u/s 234D of the Act. 4. After hearing both the parties

SMT. SUDHA EASHWAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14 (3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2342/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Smt. Sudha Eashwar, The Income Tax Officer No.23A, P.T.Rajan Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-14(3) K.K.Nagar, Chennai Chennai-600 078. [Pan: Alxps 0601 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

234D of the Act. 10.That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The appellant prays that on the above grounds, the Hon. Income-tax Appellate tribunal may kindly delete the additions and pass such