CIT v. Southern Cables and Engineering

289 ITR 167Reported decision#9868 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Southern Cables and Engineering

JCIT (OSD), CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1795/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AAACS 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "न…

JCIT (OSD), CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1794/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AAACS 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "न…

JCIT (OSD), CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1793/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AAACS 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "न…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 855/CHNY/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…007-08 to 2010-11 as under: Assessment Year Amount in Rs. 2007-08 118.00 Crores 2008-09 15.11 Crores 2009-10 1.17 Crores 2010-11 116.83 Crores The Ld.AO relied on the decision of Kerala High court in the case of CIT vs Southern Cables and Engineering works 289 ITR 167. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition following the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2008-09. In the Assessment Year 2008-09, the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 IT…

NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2140/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…007-08 to 2010-11 as under: Assessment Year Amount in Rs. 2007-08 118.00 Crores 2008-09 15.11 Crores 2009-10 1.17 Crores 2010-11 116.83 Crores The Ld.AO relied on the decision of Kerala High court in the case of CIT vs Southern Cables and Engineering works 289 ITR 167. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition following the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2008-09. In the Assessment Year 2008-09, the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 IT…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2077/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…007-08 to 2010-11 as under: Assessment Year Amount in Rs. 2007-08 118.00 Crores 2008-09 15.11 Crores 2009-10 1.17 Crores 2010-11 116.83 Crores The Ld.AO relied on the decision of Kerala High court in the case of CIT vs Southern Cables and Engineering works 289 ITR 167. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition following the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2008-09. In the Assessment Year 2008-09, the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 IT…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2029/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…007-08 to 2010-11 as under: Assessment Year Amount in Rs. 2007-08 118.00 Crores 2008-09 15.11 Crores 2009-10 1.17 Crores 2010-11 116.83 Crores The Ld.AO relied on the decision of Kerala High court in the case of CIT vs Southern Cables and Engineering works 289 ITR 167. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition following the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2008-09. In the Assessment Year 2008-09, the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 IT…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1983/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…007-08 to 2010-11 as under: Assessment Year Amount in Rs. 2007-08 118.00 Crores 2008-09 15.11 Crores 2009-10 1.17 Crores 2010-11 116.83 Crores The Ld.AO relied on the decision of Kerala High court in the case of CIT vs Southern Cables and Engineering works 289 ITR 167. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition following the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2008-09. In the Assessment Year 2008-09, the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 IT…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 859/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

…. It is submitted that the relied upon order has not become final and appeal has been preferred before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal. 2.3. Having regard to the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Southern Cables & Engineering Works (289 ITR 167), the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the assessing officer. 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s.40(a)(i) of RS.16,22,09,000/-, towards 'networking and communication costs', relying upon his own order in the assessee's case for the a-y 2003-04 in ITA Tr.No.4/09-10/LTU(A) dated 11.12.2009. 3.2. It is s…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 439/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

…. It is submitted that the relied upon order has not become final and appeal has been preferred before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal. 2.3. Having regard to the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Southern Cables & Engineering Works (289 ITR 167), the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the assessing officer. 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s.40(a)(i) of RS.16,22,09,000/-, towards 'networking and communication costs', relying upon his own order in the assessee's case for the a-y 2003-04 in ITA Tr.No.4/09-10/LTU(A) dated 11.12.2009. 3.2. It is s…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 435/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

…. It is submitted that the relied upon order has not become final and appeal has been preferred before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal. 2.3. Having regard to the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Southern Cables & Engineering Works (289 ITR 167), the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the assessing officer. 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s.40(a)(i) of RS.16,22,09,000/-, towards 'networking and communication costs', relying upon his own order in the assessee's case for the a-y 2003-04 in ITA Tr.No.4/09-10/LTU(A) dated 11.12.2009. 3.2. It is s…