UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

100% of the share capital was held by the Central\nGovernment. The assessee claimed exemption under section 10 of the\nAct relating to income from LTCG on transfer of shares exempt under\nsection 10(38) of the Act. Further, income from VCF as tax is paid by\nfund, interest on tax free bonds under section 10

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

100% of the share capital was held by the Central\nGovernment. The assessee claimed exemption under section 10 of the\nAct relating to income from LTCG on transfer of shares exempt under\nsection 10(38) of the Act. Further, income from VCF as tax is paid by\nfund, interest on tax free bonds under section 10

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

100% of the share capital was held by the Central\nGovernment. The assessee claimed exemption under section 10 of the\nAct relating to income from LTCG on transfer of shares exempt under\nsection 10(38) of the Act. Further, income from VCF as tax is paid by\nfund, interest on tax free bonds under section 10

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS was not deducted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is with regard to confirmation of disallowance of ₹.21, 44,516/-. The assessee has claimed interest paid to SBI at ₹.21,44,516/- on account of term loan taken

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS was not deducted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is with regard to confirmation of disallowance of ₹.21, 44,516/-. The assessee has claimed interest paid to SBI at ₹.21,44,516/- on account of term loan taken

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS was not deducted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is with regard to confirmation of disallowance of ₹.21, 44,516/-. The assessee has claimed interest paid to SBI at ₹.21,44,516/- on account of term loan taken

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS was not deducted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is with regard to confirmation of disallowance of ₹.21, 44,516/-. The assessee has claimed interest paid to SBI at ₹.21,44,516/- on account of term loan taken

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.269/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Cognizant Technology- The Asst. Commissioner- Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, 5/535, Okkiam, Thoriapakkam, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 096. [Pan:Aaacd 3312 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Counsel For Shri N.V. Balaji, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Shankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor – General Of India For Shri A.P.Srinivas, Sr. Standing Counsel : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.07.2023 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023

section 115-O of the Act and the consequent demand raised by the learned AO are in contravention to the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') entered by India with USA and Mauritius and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC). 12. Without prejudice

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

100 acres and Bangalore campus came to 60 acres. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, all these land were agricultural and under cultivation, when these were acquired for constructing the colleges. Submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that assessee had to purchase Murambu or soil, fill up the land and allow sufficient time for settling, before starting construction. According

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

100 acres and Bangalore campus came to 60 acres. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, all these land were agricultural and under cultivation, when these were acquired for constructing the colleges. Submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that assessee had to purchase Murambu or soil, fill up the land and allow sufficient time for settling, before starting construction. According

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

100 acres and Bangalore campus came to 60 acres. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, all these land were agricultural and under cultivation, when these were acquired for constructing the colleges. Submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that assessee had to purchase Murambu or soil, fill up the land and allow sufficient time for settling, before starting construction. According

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

100 acres and Bangalore campus came to 60 acres. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, all these land were agricultural and under cultivation, when these were acquired for constructing the colleges. Submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that assessee had to purchase Murambu or soil, fill up the land and allow sufficient time for settling, before starting construction. According

HANSA VISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3443/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Hansa Vision India P. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 19, Wheatcroft Road, Vs. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Corporate Circle 2(2), [Pan:Aabct3770E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 29.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The First Ground & Ground No. 12 Raised In The Appeal Are General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

section 32 of the Act, the assessee is entitled to 100% depreciation of expenditure incurred towards temporary structures. The assessee company on a prudent basis had claimed the expenditure on the lease building not in one assessment year, but, over a period of lease. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has observed that the income received

M/S. BINNY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, TDS,CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the\norder of Ld

TDS survey was conducted upon its\npremise on 26.10.2021. During the course of the survey it was noted\nthat the assessee had entered into a transaction for purchase of land\nadmeasuring about 7.07 acres of land during financial year with one M/s.\nMohan Breweries and distilleries Limited(MBDL), a sister concern of the\nassessee. For the purpose the assessee

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

TDS, (iii) all the recipients confirmed the commission of payments and (iv) the recipients had also appropriately shown these receipts in their respective income tax returns. 7.5 According to the ld. AR, the AO had selectively summoned some of the recipient, examined hem and also recorded their statement. The entire scenario was explained. In spite of this, both

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

TDS, (iii) all the recipients confirmed the commission of payments and (iv) the recipients had also appropriately shown these receipts in their respective income tax returns. 7.5 According to the ld. AR, the AO had selectively summoned some of the recipient, examined hem and also recorded their statement. The entire scenario was explained. In spite of this, both

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SHREE BALAJI COMMUNICATIONS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 36/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Shree Balaji Communications, Income Tax, Vs. No. 18/126, Dhan Enclave, Non-Corporate Circle 20, Bhajani Kovil St., Choolaimedu, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 094. [Pan:Abifs0605A]] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. M.M. Bhusari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Senthil Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Iv, Chennai, Dated 16.10.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. In This Appeal, The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is With Regard To Deletion Of Addition Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Towards

TDS under section 194J of the Act meant for professional/technical services/royalty. The Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of ₹.1,62,50,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by relying on the decision