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

5% of its average net profit to any political party or to any political purpose, to any person. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee being an Indian company has taken the Trust as medium to donate funds for political purpose and the actual beneficiary are the political parties and not the Trust. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel

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

5% of its average net profit to any political party or to any political purpose, to any person. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee being an Indian company has taken the Trust as medium to donate funds for political purpose and the actual beneficiary are the political parties and not the Trust. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel

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

5% of its average net profit to any political party or to any political purpose, to any person. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee being an Indian company has taken the Trust as medium to donate funds for political purpose and the actual beneficiary are the political parties and not the Trust. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel

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

5% of its average net profit to any political party or to any political purpose, to any person. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee being an Indian company has taken the Trust as medium to donate funds for political purpose and the actual beneficiary are the political parties and not the Trust. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

iii) to be restricted to 0.5% of the investments which has actually yielded exempt income during the year, would equally apply for determining disallowance u/s14A for this year also. With the above direction for computation of disallowance the issue regarding the disallowance under Section 14A is set aside to the files of the AO for deciding the issue in accordance

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

iii) marketing assets. Out of the three, only the manufacturing assets was owned by the said Undertaking, i.e. Baddi Unit. Hence the profit only to the extent of the "manufacturing profit" could be said to be derived from the Baddi Undertaking, which according to AO, was eligible for deduction u/s.80-IC of IT Act......... 5.24 After taking cognizance of the above

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

iii) marketing assets. Out of the three, only the manufacturing assets was owned by the said Undertaking, i.e. Baddi Unit. Hence the profit only to the extent of the "manufacturing profit" could be said to be derived from the Baddi Undertaking, which according to AO, was eligible for deduction u/s.80-IC of IT Act......... 5.24 After taking cognizance of the above

SUNDARAM FASTNERS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-6(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2501/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.92/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Sundram Fasteners Limited Ito बनाम/ 98-A, 7Th Floor, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Corporate Ward-6(1) Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacs-8779-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

Section 14A(2). 3.3 Without prejudice, the AO/DRP ought to have appreciated that the disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed dividend income earned. 3.4 The AO/DRP failed to appreciate that as per Rule 80(2)(ii), investments from which no dividend income was received should not be considered for the purposes of computing the disallowance, which has been allowed by ITAT

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

price of shares allotted by the successor company. 127. We find support from the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, wherein it has been consistently held that once the conditions prescribed u/s.47(xiv) of the Act are duly satisfied, the assessee is entitled to the exemption provided therein, and no addition can be made merely on account

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 his order

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 his order

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

III, Chennai in ITA No.458/09-10/A-III dated 20.08.2010 for the assessment year 2007- 08. 2. M/s. Tahmahal Agro Industries P Ltd., the assessee, is engaged in the business of buying and selling rice. While making the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05, the AO found, inter alia, that it bought a rice mill at Davangere in Karnataka

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

III, Chennai in ITA No.458/09-10/A-III dated 20.08.2010 for the assessment year 2007- 08. 2. M/s. Tahmahal Agro Industries P Ltd., the assessee, is engaged in the business of buying and selling rice. While making the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05, the AO found, inter alia, that it bought a rice mill at Davangere in Karnataka

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., 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

III, Chennai in ITA No.458/09-10/A-III dated 20.08.2010 for the assessment year 2007- 08. 2. M/s. Tahmahal Agro Industries P Ltd., the assessee, is engaged in the business of buying and selling rice. While making the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05, the AO found, inter alia, that it bought a rice mill at Davangere in Karnataka

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

III, Chennai in ITA No.458/09-10/A-III dated 20.08.2010 for the assessment year 2007- 08. 2. M/s. Tahmahal Agro Industries P Ltd., the assessee, is engaged in the business of buying and selling rice. While making the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05, the AO found, inter alia, that it bought a rice mill at Davangere in Karnataka

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Act. For all the other years, ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 6 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. proceedings for assessment which are under challenge before us, were u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. During the search a hard disk which containing books of accounts of the assessee and two diaries numbered

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Act. For all the other years, ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 6 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. proceedings for assessment which are under challenge before us, were u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. During the search a hard disk which containing books of accounts of the assessee and two diaries numbered

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

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

Section 143(3) of the Act. For all the other years, ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 6 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. proceedings for assessment which are under challenge before us, were u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. During the search a hard disk which containing books of accounts of the assessee and two diaries numbered