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

282 ITR 176 (Guj), held that the noting in the diary constituted sufficient information for the escapement of income by either non- declaration of correct sale consideration or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as regards sale consideration. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

282 under section 2(1B) read with section 72A of the Income-tax Act without appreciating the fact that 3. The CIT (A) in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that conditions stipulated under the provisions of section 2(1B) of the Act were satisfied upon amalgamation of Ws. Espiem Plastics Limited (‘amalgamating company’) with

ITO, TRICHY vs. N.CHANDRAN, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

68’’. 3. The Brief facts of the case the assessee is an individual deriving income from business and income from capital gains filed return of income on 28.09.2011 admitting total income of "3,74,680/- and was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 08.02.2012. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued

THIRU VENKATESWARA AGENCY,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-4,, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2608/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Thiru Venkateswara Agency, The Ito, 172, Trivandrum Road, Ward-4, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 002. [Pan: Aadft 2919G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee has neither appeared nor filed any response to the notices issued for hearing. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Before the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has only uploaded the notices on the e-portal

SOHANRAJ UTTAMCHAND ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaapu7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38) of the Act, and as well as with the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) who had sustained the addition made by the Ld.AO. 8.2 Further on examining the decisions relied by the Ld. Revenue Authorities we do not find much strength in the same. They are briefly discussed herein below for reference:- a) The Ld.AO

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CONTINENTAL CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

282/- under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘’Act’’) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As against this, assessee in its appeal is aggrieved on notional charge of interest @9% on outstanding balance of unsecured loans thereby reducing the deduction u/s.80IA claimed by it. One other ground taken by the assessee

CONTINENTAL CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

282/- under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘’Act’’) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As against this, assessee in its appeal is aggrieved on notional charge of interest @9% on outstanding balance of unsecured loans thereby reducing the deduction u/s.80IA claimed by it. One other ground taken by the assessee

CONTINENTAL CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

282/- under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘’Act’’) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As against this, assessee in its appeal is aggrieved on notional charge of interest @9% on outstanding balance of unsecured loans thereby reducing the deduction u/s.80IA claimed by it. One other ground taken by the assessee

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,31,19,282 73,55,67,138 MACHINERY Total 5,81,30,811 2,19,49,05,960 2,25,30,36,771 M/s. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd. :: 8 :: The assessee also filed invoices of assets from Page Nos.186-442. 9. The AO second time issued notice u/s.142(1) dated 11.11.2022 for AY 2021-22 asking for the following

P.K.C.PRABHU,MADURAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-3, MADURAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

68,298/- against loss of Rs.45,11,108/- from derivative trading; Explanation to Section 73 is applicable only in a case where the principal business of the assessee is purchase and sale of shares. 9. Without prejudice to the above contentions the appellant submits that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the assessing officer failed

COASTAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2305/Chny/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Coastal Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 5, Buhari Buildings, Moores Road, Income Tax, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006. Company Circle I(3), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacc4160A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

68,716 29,19,72,152 Arm’s length Bulker Mairouli 163.5 49,282 32,59,30,203 3,08,51,124 29,50,79,079 29,51,94,259 30,99,53,972 Arm’s length 27 I.T.A. No.2305/Chny/12 35. On perusal of the above, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR that the above said

ASHOK AMRITRAJ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1244/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Ashok Amritraj, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 10, Chesney Lane, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aabpa2975R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Mohd. Mustafa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

282. Against this, the assessee has claimed an amount of ₹.43,25,232/- under section 57 of the Act as expenses incurred in recovering the fixed deposit and interest, resulting a loss of ₹.10,68

M/S.NLC INDCOSERVE,CUDDALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2,, CUDDALORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

282 (SC). However, the said case dealt with the interpretation, and the deduction, which would be applicable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. For, in the present case the interpretation that is required is of Section 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act and not Section

THE DHARMAPURI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.,DHARMAPURI vs. JCIT, SALEM

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistcial purposes to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1188/Chny/2016 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Dharmapuri District Central Jcit बनाम/ Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Range-Iii No.81/10H, Bye Pass Road, Salem. Vs. Dharmapuri – 636 701 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat-3148-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19-04-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13-07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

282), decided the issue in revenue’s favor as under:- 7. Explanatory notes on provisions contained in Circular No. 346 dated 30-1-1982 deals with object of deductions made in respect of payments to associations and doubtful debts under section 36 (1)(viia) of the Act. The relevant extract reads as under:- 17.3 As non-scheduled commercial banks

DCIT, TRICHY vs. THE PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, PUDUKKOTTAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

68,750.00 5.4. The veracity of the claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act was verified in the light of the submissions made by the A.R. of the appellant vis-a-vis the facts submitted by him and the conclusion arrived at by the AssessingOfficer. It is seen from the records that the appellant had claimed

M/S SHRIRAM PROPERTIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-CENTRAL1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

68,61,895 equity shares in Shriram Properties & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. were pledged with Deutsche Pfandbrief Bank AG against compulsory convertible debenture issued by Shriram Properties & Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. There is no information as to fair value measurement adopted to these combined financial instruments. As per information in Schedule 15, shares and debenture bonds were pledged with banks to avail certain

TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

68,890/-. The assessee company was holding 100% equity shares in M/s. Kiran Medical Systems Pvt.Ltd. M/s. Kiran Medical Systems Pvt.Ltd is a 100% subsidiary of assessee company had amalgamated with the assessee company w.e.f 01.04.2013 in a scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide order dated 28.04.2015. The assessee had invested Rs.114

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

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

section 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). A notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued for scrutiny assessment on 22.09.2019 and notices u/s.142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates calling for details and documents in support of various claims made by the assessee in the return of income. The assessee submitted the details