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)

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

viia) was inserted in the section 56(2) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2010. The Memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill, 2010 inter alia provided the following legislative intent for insertion of the said clause:— ".................In order to prevent the practice of transferring unlisted shares at prices

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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1146/Chny/2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT &FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,PARRYS, CHENNAI vs. ACIT- CORPORATE CIRCLE -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

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

viia) of the Act ignoring the principle emanated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd (supra). We find that the ld. CIT(A) considered only the provisions of bad and doubtful debts debited to profit and loss account and ignored the write off of bad debts debited to provisions for bad and doubtful