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

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

2) of\nthe Act. (C)The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the\nLd. AO erred in not considering the fact that the assessee is engaged in\nthe business of offshore drilling services, extraction and exploration of\nmineral oil and natural gas and any services and charges paid to non-\nresidents with respect drilling, exploration

THE THANJAVUR DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,THANJAVUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE2(1), TRICHY

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.404/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co Op The Principal Milk Producers Union Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income No.1, Nanjikottai Road, Tax-1, Madurai. Thanjavur – 613006. Pan: Aaaat 0224 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By K.Meenakshisundaram - Itp Revenue By Shri M.Rajan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Act) Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai-1, Dated 26/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26/3/2022 Received By The Appellant On 1/4/2022 Is Objected To On The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Madurai Erred In Setting Aside The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Trichy Dated 5/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Under Section 263 On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions That The Order Had Been Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Misdirected Himself That The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Simply For The Reason That The

TDS - Cash deposits during demonetisation period. 2.1 It is mentioned in the Assessment Order that the assessee being Co-Operative Society have claimed deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) on following amounts: -Interest on fixed deposit with Co-Op Central bank Thanjavur Rs. 79,17,751/- ITA No.404/RPR/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co. Op Milk Producers Union

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

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

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

127,03,79,840 10,28,85,610 The CIT(A) asked for information and assessee filed the following documents:- S.No. Particulars Date of agreement 1 Power of attorney given by M/s. Tube Investments 22.06.2010 India Ltd. and EID Parry India Ltd., in favour of M/s. Parry Infrastructure Co Pvt Ltd (the appellant) 2 Joint Development Agreement 24.11.2010 3 Supplementary

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

2 and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessees, have no application in the facts of these cases. 173. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through

SAME DEUTZ FAHR ITALIA SPA,ITALY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

2) of the Act, the income of a non-resident is taxable in India if the income is received or deemed to be received :-14-: ITA. No:937/Chny/2024 or accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise in India. In the present case, reimbursement received by the Assessee cannot be construed as received or deemed to be received

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

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

TDS on such payments/expenditure as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the expenditure incurred on account of management fees and consultancy charges paid outside India to the tune of ₹ 13,32,01,184/- is disallowed u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. 10. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordiante Bench in the case

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

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

TEMENOS HEADQUARTERS SA,SWITZERLAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

2), Chennai. (ITA No. 1955/Chny/2017) c) Altisource Business Solutions (P.) Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), [2021] 127 taxmann.com 800 (Bangalore Tribunal) d) Bain &Company India (P.) Ltd. V Income-tax Officer (TDS), International Taxation, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi Tribunal) e) IBM Singapore (Pte.) Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (International Taxation) (2021) 13l taxmann.com

TEMENOS HEADQUARTERS SA,SWITZERLAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

2), Chennai. (ITA No. 1955/Chny/2017) c) Altisource Business Solutions (P.) Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), [2021] 127 taxmann.com 800 (Bangalore Tribunal) d) Bain &Company India (P.) Ltd. V Income-tax Officer (TDS), International Taxation, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi Tribunal) e) IBM Singapore (Pte.) Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (International Taxation) (2021) 13l taxmann.com

TEMENOS HEADQUARTERS SA,SWITZERLAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

2), Chennai. (ITA No. 1955/Chny/2017) c) Altisource Business Solutions (P.) Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), [2021] 127 taxmann.com 800 (Bangalore Tribunal) d) Bain &Company India (P.) Ltd. V Income-tax Officer (TDS), International Taxation, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi Tribunal) e) IBM Singapore (Pte.) Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (International Taxation) (2021) 13l taxmann.com