ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

68,89,00,000 under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act; and o Disallowance of interest expenditure of INR 5,70,62,500 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, being computed at 10% of the buyback value, i.e., 57,06,25,000 :-9-: ITA Nos.:1339, 1616/Chny/2025 & C.O.No.66/Chny/2025 • Pursuant to the appeal filed

MRS.JOTHI NARAYANAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. For this, assessee has raised following ground Nos. 5 to 5.2 :- “5. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.124,68

MR. THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. For this, assessee has raised following ground Nos. 5 to 5.2 :- “5. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.124,68

VAANI ESTATES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 3(4), CHENNAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1352/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Vaani Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Ito, No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Corporate Ward – 3(4), Abhiramapuram, Chennai Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaecv0933A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,600/- to the income of the assessee. 5. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.AR made the following submissions:- “The Appellant Company had only two shareholders viz Mrs. Sasikala Raghupathy and her husband Mr. B. G. Raghupathy (each holding 5000 shares). On passing away of E.G. Raghupathy, his 5000 shares devolved on her daughter Mrs. Vani Raghupathy. Therefore Mrs. Sasikala

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

Section 56(2)(vii); that such receipt of property by the trust will not be taxable u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Having taken note of this position of law, we now revert back to the facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that, the settler contributing the property is an individual and that

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68,76,690 21,53,308 7,17,42,510 3,76,53,308 2016-17 98,29,529 30,56,909 8,87,83,560 5,63,13,914 2017-18 1,44,35,318 50,05,920 1,64,84,811 62,86,626 2018-19 1,73,70,240 60,21,575 2

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68,76,690 21,53,308 7,17,42,510 3,76,53,308 2016-17 98,29,529 30,56,909 8,87,83,560 5,63,13,914 2017-18 1,44,35,318 50,05,920 1,64,84,811 62,86,626 2018-19 1,73,70,240 60,21,575 2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

vii b), the words \"being a resident\" shall be omitted'. This makes it crystal clear that it is only from Assessment Year 2024-25 that share premia received from a non-resident in excess of the fair market value can be taxed. Thus, there is no case u/s 56(2)(viib) also for the impugned AYs. This shows Parliament

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

vii b), the words \"being a resident\"\nshall be omitted'. This makes it crystal clear that it is only\nfrom Assessment Year 2024-25 that share premia received\nfrom a non-resident in excess of the fair market value can\nbe taxed. Thus, there is no case u/s 56(2)(viib) also for the\nimpugned AYs. This shows Parliament

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)

VII is not applicable as it deals with Government grants only, but not inclusive of the duty credit scrips under MEIS, which are rewards. We hold that the benefit under Foreign Trade Policy-2015 received being MEIS scrips cannot fall within the meaning of cash assistance under section 28(iiib) of the Act. We hold the sums received

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)

VII is not applicable as it deals with Government grants only, but not inclusive of the duty credit scrips under MEIS, which are rewards. We hold that the benefit under Foreign Trade Policy-2015 received being MEIS scrips cannot fall within the meaning of cash assistance under section 28(iiib) of the Act. We hold the sums received

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)

VII is not applicable as it deals with Government grants only, but not inclusive of the duty credit scrips under MEIS, which are rewards. We hold that the benefit under Foreign Trade Policy-2015 received being MEIS scrips cannot fall within the meaning of cash assistance under section 28(iiib) of the Act. We hold the sums received

TIRUCHANGODU RAMASAMY KHANNAIYANN SARASUWATHI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant cannot be penalized by making an addition u/s.56(2)(vii) in the event of non-receipt of valuation report by the Assessing Officer in respect

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

56(2)(vii) in all these years as well as long term capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

56(2)(vii) in all these years as well as long term capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

56(2)(vii) in all these years as well as long term capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

56(2)(vii) in all these years as well as long term capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

56(2)(vii) in all these years as well as long term capital\ngain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on\nany incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR\nrelying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nCIT vs Kabul Chawla

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

vii) & (ix). We are therefore in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that these fixed assets were in the nature of 'plant & machinery' and hence the assessee had rightly claimed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the same. The Ld. CIT, DR appearing before us are was unable to controvert the same. We therefore