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

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42.\nGround

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

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42.\nGround

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

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42.\nGround

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

38-A, AS Pettai Main Road, TDS, Namakkal District-637 001. Salem. [PAN: APRPC 0189 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA (by virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 26.08.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

38-A, AS Pettai Main Road, TDS, Namakkal District-637 001. Salem. [PAN: APRPC 0189 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA (by virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 26.08.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

38-A, AS Pettai Main Road, TDS, Namakkal District-637 001. Salem. [PAN: APRPC 0189 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA (by virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 26.08.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

38-A, AS Pettai Main Road, TDS, Namakkal District-637 001. Salem. [PAN: APRPC 0189 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA (by virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 26.08.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

38-A, AS Pettai Main Road, TDS, Namakkal District-637 001. Salem. [PAN: APRPC 0189 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA (by virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 26.08.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश

SCL TRADELINK AND SERVICES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 317/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Scl Tradelink & Services Acit, Limited, V. Corporate Circle -6(1), No. 9, Cathedral Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 086. [Pan: Aakcs-5424-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023

10(38) of the Act, in the hands of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), without appreciating relevant facts sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer. 5. The ld. Sr. AR, Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A), submitted that it is purely a legal issue, which needs to be adjudicated in light

M.V.A.SEETHARAMA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.795/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mr. M.V.A. Seetharama Raju, Tax, Flat No.32, Rishikesh Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-2, 38, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. Pan: Agopr 1931M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

38, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. PAN: AGOPR 1931M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. R. Devaraj, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Dr. I.P.Roopa, JCIT ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of hearing 04.01.2022 : 31.01.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, AM: This appeal filed

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]

38. Ad libitum reply of the ld. Departmental Representative was that benefit was derived by the trustees of the assessee, or their close relatives through the various land transactions. According to him, benefit did not mean that there should be a pecuniary surplus. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, on the question of the legitimacy of the claim for land

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]

38. Ad libitum reply of the ld. Departmental Representative was that benefit was derived by the trustees of the assessee, or their close relatives through the various land transactions. According to him, benefit did not mean that there should be a pecuniary surplus. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, on the question of the legitimacy of the claim for land

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]

38. Ad libitum reply of the ld. Departmental Representative was that benefit was derived by the trustees of the assessee, or their close relatives through the various land transactions. According to him, benefit did not mean that there should be a pecuniary surplus. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, on the question of the legitimacy of the claim for land

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]

38. Ad libitum reply of the ld. Departmental Representative was that benefit was derived by the trustees of the assessee, or their close relatives through the various land transactions. According to him, benefit did not mean that there should be a pecuniary surplus. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, on the question of the legitimacy of the claim for land

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.

38) thereof) or section 11 or section 12 apply; or (i) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset, if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (i) is debited to the statement of profit and loss or if any amount referred to in clause (j) is not credited

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

38,81,04,344/- By holding that the discount offered by the assessee to their distributors as commission, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee was in default under section 201(1) r.w.s. 194H of the Act, since the assessee has not deducted TDS as per the provisions of section 194H of the Act on the prepaid recharge coupons. Accordingly

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

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

38,81,04,344/- By holding that the discount offered by the assessee to their distributors as commission, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee was in default under section 201(1) r.w.s. 194H of the Act, since the assessee has not deducted TDS as per the provisions of section 194H of the Act on the prepaid recharge coupons. Accordingly

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

38,81,04,344/- By holding that the discount offered by the assessee to their distributors as commission, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee was in default under section 201(1) r.w.s. 194H of the Act, since the assessee has not deducted TDS as per the provisions of section 194H of the Act on the prepaid recharge coupons. Accordingly