AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 47(xiv) have been fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld.AR has contended that the same is not affected by the provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the issue is that of interpretation of the proviso to section 47(xiv) of the Act. The revenue has filed

INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

80G(5)(vi) as well as 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed the application in Form No. 10A for registration under section 12AA of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 3006 & 3007/Chny/18 Act on 02.03.2017. The ld. CIT(E), vide

INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

80G(5)(vi) as well as 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed the application in Form No. 10A for registration under section 12AA of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 3006 & 3007/Chny/18 Act on 02.03.2017. The ld. CIT(E), vide

BOUNTEOUS DIGITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1600/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bounteous Digital Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Block A, 8Th Floor, Global Infocity Park Income Tax, No. 40, Mgr Salai, Perungudi, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 096. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacl6079R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.R. Raghunathan, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.02.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A) – 10, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of Csr Expenses In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

68,600/- on account of donation towards education and others. Further, we find the assessee contended that the GL extract for the salary expenses incurred cannot be provided as it included as a part of the payroll entry and no separate ledger is maintained and further we note that it was said that no board approval or resolution required

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

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

iii) Generally on 31 March the moneys remaining were adjusted. But on 31-3-2012 (in the hands of company) huge sum of Rs,17,38,74,036, which was outstanding, was withdrawn. But that day’s sales was only Rs.14,87,77,889. The assessee did not explain as to how he allowed all his customers to get refund

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

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

iii) Generally on 31 March the moneys remaining were adjusted. But on 31-3-2012 (in the hands of company) huge sum of Rs,17,38,74,036, which was outstanding, was withdrawn. But that day’s sales was only Rs.14,87,77,889. The assessee did not explain as to how he allowed all his customers to get refund

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

iii) Generally on 31 March the moneys remaining were adjusted. But on 31-3-2012 (in the hands of company) huge sum of Rs,17,38,74,036, which was outstanding, was withdrawn. But that day’s sales was only Rs.14,87,77,889. The assessee did not explain as to how he allowed all his customers to get refund

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

iii) Generally on 31 March the moneys remaining were adjusted. But on 31-3-2012 (in the hands of company) huge sum of Rs,17,38,74,036, which was outstanding, was withdrawn. But that day’s sales was only Rs.14,87,77,889. The assessee did not explain as to how he allowed all his customers to get refund

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)

5. The CIT(A), however concurred with the view of the AO that assessee trust has not explained i) source of cash deposits & ii) genuineness and capacity of donors. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- “It is pertinent to note that the appellant has failed to justify the source of cash deposits made to its bank

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68,14,24,514: 6.1. The CIT(A) is not justified in merely following the CIT(A) NFAC's preceding year's order i.e. for AY 2018-19 and erred in directing AO to adopt an incorrect margin of 6.09% instead of the margin of 11.51% as claimed by the appellant for the eligible unit. 6.2. The CIT(A)-NFAC

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) LTU - II, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,14,24,514: 6. 1. The CIT(A) is not justified in merely following the CIT(A) NFAC's preceding year's order i.e. for AY 2018-19 and erred in directing AO to adopt an incorrect margin of 6.09% instead of the margin of 11.51% as claimed by the appellant for the eligible unit

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest on borrowed funds. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the income earned from the investment in Balco is business income. The investment made in Balco was for running business of the assessee in a profitable manner

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 80G for the sole reason that the receipts were produced in the course of the hearing and that the claim was not made in a revised return and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has purchased the rice mill such as land and building, machineries