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

34)\n₹.\n22,52,211/-\n₹.\n1,76,12,403/-\n₹.\n4,40,105/-\n₹.\n388,58,24,247/-\n24.\nOn perusal of the above, it is noted that the Tribunal observed that\nthe Assessing Officer granted exemption in respect of all above except on\nLTCG on transfer of shares under section 10(38) of the Act to an extent

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

34)\n₹.\n4,40,105/-\n₹.\n388,58,24,247/-\n24.\nOn perusal of the above, it is noted that the Tribunal observed that\nthe Assessing Officer granted exemption in respect of all above except on\nLTCG on transfer of shares under section 10(38) of the Act to an extent of\nRs.588,85,02,720/-. Therefore, it is clear

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

34)\n₹.\n4,40,105/-\n₹.\n388,58,24,247/-\n24.\nOn perusal of the above, it is noted that the Tribunal observed that\nthe Assessing Officer granted exemption in respect of all above except on\nLTCG on transfer of shares under section 10(38) of the Act to an extent of\nRs.588,85,02,720/-. Therefore, it is clear

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

34. Before parting we may refer to reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the ratio laid down by Chennai Bench of Tribunal in G. Indirani Vs. 5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

34. Before parting we may refer to reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the ratio laid down by Chennai Bench of Tribunal in G. Indirani Vs. 5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

34. Before parting we may refer to reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the ratio laid down by Chennai Bench of Tribunal in G. Indirani Vs. 5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

34. Before parting we may refer to reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the ratio laid down by Chennai Bench of Tribunal in G. Indirani Vs. 5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

34. Before parting we may refer to reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the ratio laid down by Chennai Bench of Tribunal in G. Indirani Vs. 5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

34. Before parting we may refer to reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the ratio laid down by Chennai Bench of Tribunal in G. Indirani Vs. 5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E

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

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT-RANGE-II, CHENNAI

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

34,55,545/-. The Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance\nmade by the AO as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) to the tune of Rs.48.70 crores by\nfollowing the order of the Tribunal in earlier year supra. The Revenue has\nchallenged this action of Ld.CIT(A) and in this respect, we note that from\nbalance-sheet of the assessee that

KRISHNASWAMY YOGANANDAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 194H of Income Tax Act,1961 or not? B) Whether the assesee is correct in deducting TDS @10% on the sum of Rs.1,13,34

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]

34,000/- to Smt. B. Ramani for acquiring 6.23 acres of land at Kangaeyanallur, though later cancelled and refunded, resulted in a benefit to Smt. B. Ramani attracting Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 43 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Whether advance of Rs.1,00,00,000/- paid to Shri. Arjunlal Sunderdoss during previous year

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]

34,000/- to Smt. B. Ramani for acquiring 6.23 acres of land at Kangaeyanallur, though later cancelled and refunded, resulted in a benefit to Smt. B. Ramani attracting Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 43 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Whether advance of Rs.1,00,00,000/- paid to Shri. Arjunlal Sunderdoss during previous year

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]

34,000/- to Smt. B. Ramani for acquiring 6.23 acres of land at Kangaeyanallur, though later cancelled and refunded, resulted in a benefit to Smt. B. Ramani attracting Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 43 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Whether advance of Rs.1,00,00,000/- paid to Shri. Arjunlal Sunderdoss during previous year