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

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

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

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

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

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

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

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

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

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

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

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

SUNDARAM HOME FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 3, CHENNAI

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

36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961. The Assessing Officer has already disallowed the deduction to\nthe extent of Rs. 2,68,94,244/-and allowed the deduction to the extent of\nRs.29,65,14,656/- as against the claim of Rs.32,34.08,900/-. Therefore, the\nbalance claim of exceeding the special reserve created and maintained of\nRs.29

DCIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

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

Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 25. Ground No.4 of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Now, we take up the cross-appeal of the Revenue. 27. Revenue has raised 15 grounds. Ground No.1 and 15 are general needing no adjudication

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

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

Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 25. Ground No.4 of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Now, we take up the cross-appeal of the Revenue. 27. Revenue has raised 15 grounds. Ground No.1 and 15 are general needing no adjudication

DCIT, TRICHY vs. M/S. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK. LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

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

Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 25. Ground No.4 of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Now, we take up the cross-appeal of the Revenue. 27. Revenue has raised 15 grounds. Ground No.1 and 15 are general needing no adjudication

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

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

Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 25. Ground No.4 of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Now, we take up the cross-appeal of the Revenue. 27. Revenue has raised 15 grounds. Ground No.1 and 15 are general needing no adjudication

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,LTU(2), CHENNAI

Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.661/Chny/2019, 202 & 203/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-2018) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Ltu (2) Chennai. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.914/Chny/2019, 253 & 254/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17&2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Ltu (2) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024

36(1)(vii) of the Act. We find from the record that the ld. CIT(A) is right in remitting back the issue to AO for verification the genuineness of the claim of the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed. (II) Disallowance of Rs.7,06,20,323/- under section 14A read with Rule

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

36,20,457 2004-05 25,83,90,789 8,71,65,250 34,55,56,039 2003-04 17,82,68

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

36,20,457 2004-05 25,83,90,789 8,71,65,250 34,55,56,039 2003-04 17,82,68

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

36,20,457 2004-05 25,83,90,789 8,71,65,250 34,55,56,039 2003-04 17,82,68

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

36,20,457 2004-05 25,83,90,789 8,71,65,250 34,55,56,039 2003-04 17,82,68

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. ACIT, TRICHY

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

viii). 5.4 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Business Income of the Bank comprises Income from various sources of business not related to eligible business. 5.5 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the method of computation adopted by the Appellant bank is the most appropriate method. For all these and other

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY

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

viii). 5.4 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Business Income of the Bank comprises Income from various sources of business not related to eligible business. 5.5 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the method of computation adopted by the Appellant bank is the most appropriate method. For all these and other