M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), 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)

price (i.e., INR 275 per share) was wrongly assessed as income under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The learned AO failed to note that the valuation of INR 607 determined under the DCF method is not in accordance with the valuation methodology prescribed under the Act. • If one were to compute the FMV of the shares bought back

M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer for no or\ninadequate consideration. Hence, the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the\nAct shall not be applicable in cases of receipt of shares by the specified\ncompany or firm as a result of fresh issuance of shares as mentioned in\npara 2 above, by the specified company.”\n:-14-:\nITA. No: 2601/Chny/2024\n11.5 Though this circular

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)

price / share premium for the shares allotted to Mrs.Sasikala Raghupathy over and above the face value of shares which works out to Rs.23,31,68,600/- (i.e., 23,086 * 10,100). Accordingly the Ld.AO invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, added the amount of Rs.23,31,68,600/- to the income of the assessee

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI vs. VENTURE LIGHTING INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

price as deemed income under the head ‘Other Sources'. In appeal, the CIT(A) held that the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) does not get attracted in buyback of shares and also accepted the arguments of the assessee that, on account of buyback of its share, it had not received any 'property'. The ld. Senior DR submitted that

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

price ought to have been Rs.56.36/share. The Ld.AO consequently made an addition of Rs.42,29,48,758/- invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11UA. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the findings of the Ld.AO. The assessee is assailing the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) dated

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

transfer pricing orders, approx. 27% of value of imports was considered for downward adjustment. Even if the TPO orders were to be accepted, such profits would amount to Rs.1120.55 crores out of total imports of Rs.4150.20 crores only, whereas the total additions proposed in the case of assessee and RK exceed this conjectured profit. Without prejudice, the entire share capital

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

transfer pricing orders, approx. 27% of value\nof imports was considered for downward adjustment. Even\nif the TPO orders were to be accepted, such profits would\namount to Rs.1120.55 crores out of total imports of\nRs.4150.20 crores only, whereas the total additions\nproposed in the case of assessee and RK exceed this\nconjectured profit. Without prejudice, the entire share\ncapital

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] 55[(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.] (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2

M/S. BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall\nhave the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.]\n55[(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years\nfrom the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was\npassed.]\n(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

transferred to separate reserve before the end of the financial year but not next year and the additional claim u/s. 36(1)(viii)of the Act is not allowed in the Return of income. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee bank has claimed Bad debts and Doubtful Debts, written off to the extent

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

transferred to separate reserve before the end of the financial year but not next year and the additional claim u/s. 36(1)(viii)of the Act is not allowed in the Return of income. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee bank has claimed Bad debts and Doubtful Debts, written off to the extent

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

transferred to separate reserve before the end of the financial year but not next year and the additional claim u/s. 36(1)(viii)of the Act is not allowed in the Return of income. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee bank has claimed Bad debts and Doubtful Debts, written off to the extent

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

transferred to separate reserve before the end of the financial year but not next year and the additional claim u/s. 36(1)(viii)of the Act is not allowed in the Return of income. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee bank has claimed Bad debts and Doubtful Debts, written off to the extent

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

transferred to separate reserve before the end of the financial year but not next year and the additional claim u/s. 36(1)(viii)of the Act is not allowed in the Return of income. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee bank has claimed Bad debts and Doubtful Debts, written off to the extent

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

transferred to separate reserve before the end of the financial year but not next year and the additional claim u/s. 36(1)(viii)of the Act is not allowed in the Return of income. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee bank has claimed Bad debts and Doubtful Debts, written off to the extent

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

transferred to separate reserve before the end of the financial year but not next year and the additional claim u/s. 36(1)(viii)of the Act is not allowed in the Return of income. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee bank has claimed Bad debts and Doubtful Debts, written off to the extent

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1) , CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIANCE COMPPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

transferred substantially all the risk and rewards of the ownership of the said receivables and hence the assessee should have offered the entire profit on the assignment of receivables including Rs 2699.02 lakhs to tax during A.Y. 2012-13 only. 10.2 In the grounds of appeal, the appellant contested that the change in the accounting policy is bonafide

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1) , CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIANCE COMPPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

transferred substantially all the risk and rewards of the ownership of the said receivables and hence the assessee should have offered the entire profit on the assignment of receivables including Rs 2699.02 lakhs to tax during A.Y. 2012-13 only. 10.2 In the grounds of appeal, the appellant contested that the change in the accounting policy is bonafide

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT-1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

transferred substantially all the risk and rewards of the ownership of the said receivables and hence the assessee should have offered the entire profit on the assignment of receivables including Rs 2699.02 lakhs to tax during A.Y. 2012-13 only. 10.2 In the grounds of appeal, the appellant contested that the change in the accounting policy is bonafide