BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

117 results for “TDS”+ Section 112clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi447Mumbai303Bangalore208Chennai117Chandigarh114Karnataka106Hyderabad98Ahmedabad94Cochin69Kolkata62Jaipur57Indore41Pune40Raipur37Visakhapatnam24Agra20Rajkot16Guwahati15Cuttack14Dehradun12Lucknow9Nagpur9Amritsar9Patna8Surat7Allahabad3Panaji3SC2Calcutta2Telangana1Ranchi1

Key Topics

TDS54Section 234E48Section 200A45Section 143(3)42Disallowance37Addition to Income35Section 4028Deduction18Section 143(2)17Section 143(1)

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 252/CHNY/2022[2015-16(24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

Showing 1–20 of 117 · Page 1 of 6

17
Section 14815
Section 13214

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD112, KALIAMMAN KOIL STREET, NATESA NAGAR, VIRUGAMBAKKAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 247/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.1,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 257/CHNY/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 250/CHNY/2022[2014-15 (26Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 248/CHNY/2022[214-15(244Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 255/CHNY/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 251/CHNY/2022[2014-15 (26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 256/CHNY/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S. SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 246/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 254/CHNY/2022[2015-16(24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD1,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 253/CHNY/2022[2015-16 (24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 258/CHNY/2022[2015-16(24Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTUIONS COMPANY P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 245/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 249/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

112, Kaliamman Koil Street, CPC, 7. 251/Chny/2022 2014-15(24Q-Q4) Natesan Nagar, Ghaziabad. 8. 252/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) Virugambakkam, 9. 253/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q2) Chennai – 600 092. 10. 254/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) [PAN: AAJCS 4089 F] 11. 255/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q1) 12. 256/Chny/2022 2015-16(26Q-Q2) 13. 257/Chny/2022 2015-16(24Q-Q3) 14. 258/Chny/2022

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1628/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

TDS under section 195. Also, by any reason, a reinsurer cannot be 'deemed to have permanent establishment'. In some of OTTA agreements insurance enterprise in regard to reinsurance is not deemed to have permanent establishment in the contracting state (eg. Swiss). No principal agent Relationship: As regards the principal agent relationship, it would be worthwhile to mention that

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1356/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

TDS under section 195. Also, by any reason, a reinsurer cannot be 'deemed to have permanent establishment'. In some of OTTA agreements insurance enterprise in regard to reinsurance is not deemed to have permanent establishment in the contracting state (eg. Swiss). No principal agent Relationship: As regards the principal agent relationship, it would be worthwhile to mention that

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 2310/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

TDS under section 195. Also, by any reason, a reinsurer cannot be 'deemed to have permanent establishment'. In some of OTTA agreements insurance enterprise in regard to reinsurance is not deemed to have permanent establishment in the contracting state (eg. Swiss). No principal agent Relationship: As regards the principal agent relationship, it would be worthwhile to mention that

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1630/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

TDS under section 195. Also, by any reason, a reinsurer cannot be 'deemed to have permanent establishment'. In some of OTTA agreements insurance enterprise in regard to reinsurance is not deemed to have permanent establishment in the contracting state (eg. Swiss). No principal agent Relationship: As regards the principal agent relationship, it would be worthwhile to mention that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1666/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

TDS under section 195. Also, by any reason, a reinsurer cannot be 'deemed to have permanent establishment'. In some of OTTA agreements insurance enterprise in regard to reinsurance is not deemed to have permanent establishment in the contracting state (eg. Swiss). No principal agent Relationship: As regards the principal agent relationship, it would be worthwhile to mention that

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1629/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

TDS under section 195. Also, by any reason, a reinsurer cannot be 'deemed to have permanent establishment'. In some of OTTA agreements insurance enterprise in regard to reinsurance is not deemed to have permanent establishment in the contracting state (eg. Swiss). No principal agent Relationship: As regards the principal agent relationship, it would be worthwhile to mention that