MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

127/- reflected in the return of income as loss on sale of shares. 4. Ground 3 Disallowance of asset write off - Rs. 29,63,848/- 1.1. The appellant submits that the asset write off is due to obsolescence in technology and the assessing officer is incorrect in allowing the same. The appellant submits that the assessing officer has failed

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

127/- reflected in the return of income as loss on sale of shares. 4. Ground 3 Disallowance of asset write off - Rs. 29,63,848/- 1.1. The appellant submits that the asset write off is due to obsolescence in technology and the assessing officer is incorrect in allowing the same. The appellant submits that the assessing officer has failed

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

127/- reflected in the return of income as loss on sale of shares. 4. Ground 3 Disallowance of asset write off - Rs. 29,63,848/- 1.1. The appellant submits that the asset write off is due to obsolescence in technology and the assessing officer is incorrect in allowing the same. The appellant submits that the assessing officer has failed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. NEELARAJ VINOTH, PERAMBALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

127 Taxman\n523, is relied upon, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that the\nonus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stads\nfully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established\nand actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the\nAssessing Officer is dissatisfied about the source of cash

TEMENOS INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. 174. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix

NEELARAJ VINOTH,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CC-2, , TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Neelaraj Vinoth, Income Tax, V. 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -2, Perambalur – 621 212, Trichy. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, Assistant Commissioner Of 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, V. Income Tax, Perambalur – 621 212, Central Circle -2, Tamilnadu. Trichy. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS relating to the said transaction, the undersigned is of the considered view that the seized material relied upon by the Assessing Officer (loose sheet Sl. No. 2) does not partake the character of "incriminating material to invoke the provisions of section 153C of the Act. Consequently the satisfaction recorded by the AO by relying upon such seized material

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, INTL, TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

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

section 195\nof Income Tax act, payment made to non-resident shall not be liable\nto deduct TDS if the Income is not chargeable to tax in India. In this\nregard, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements:\n•\nDecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Puma\nSports India

COSMOPOLITAN CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

127/- in the order passed\nITA No.2011/Chny/2025\nCosmopolitan Club\n:- 2 -:\nu/s.154 r.w.s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the\nAct\") by Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru (hereinafter “CPC).\n3. The assessee is a club and filed its return of income declaring\ntotal income of Rs.1,19,32,733/-. The assessee has claimed TDS of\nRs.9

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

127 which has taken such view. Section 45(2) therefore is relevant. 4.3.4 The capital gains as on conversion can be offered in the year of actual sale and the difference in sale price and market value on conversion will be offered as business profits. Looking at the situation independently, one can say that the provision of section

PLINTRON MOBILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD -5(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 104/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Plintron Mobility Solutions Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward 5(2), Formerly Known As Plintron Global Chennai – 600 034. Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Block 6, 3Rd Floor, Dlf It Sez, Gks Tech Park, 1/124, Shivaji Gardern, Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 089. [Pan: Aabcl 4077E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Viswanathan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021

TDS has to be deducted. 10. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining additions made by the AO towards disallowance of payment made to non-resident supplier from USA for purchase of software for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. KALEESUWARI REFINERY PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for ay 2007-08 in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

127 On these payments, the assessee has not deducted TDS .When the assessee was required to explain as to why these expenditure should not be disallowed u/s.40a(i) , it contended that since they are reimbursements made to those parties in respect of demurrage paid by the shippers, they will not attract the provisions of section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. KALEESUWARI REFINERY PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for ay 2007-08 in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

127 On these payments, the assessee has not deducted TDS .When the assessee was required to explain as to why these expenditure should not be disallowed u/s.40a(i) , it contended that since they are reimbursements made to those parties in respect of demurrage paid by the shippers, they will not attract the provisions of section

ANNAI ARUL ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 22(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1608/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13

TDS reconciliation statement, etc. In this case, a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 23.01.2015 and a sworn statement was recorded from Shri Christopher Anthony Joseph, one of the Partners of M/s. Annai Arul on 23.01.2015. As per the details taken from assessee’s computer for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, the collection receipt shows

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

S.P.BALASUBRAMANYAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.696 /Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

127. On perusal of order, the then ld. Assessing Officer has dealt on the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) of the Act and there was no mention about the payments or verification of TDS deduction and the ld. Authorised Representative also filed computation of income, profit and loss account and Balance sheet in support of the grounds. The ld. Commissioner

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. S.P.BALASUBRAMANYAM, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.696 /Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

127. On perusal of order, the then ld. Assessing Officer has dealt on the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) of the Act and there was no mention about the payments or verification of TDS deduction and the ld. Authorised Representative also filed computation of income, profit and loss account and Balance sheet in support of the grounds. The ld. Commissioner