SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

144A of the Act and valid 21. Now coming to the merits of the case, one of the contentions raised by the ld. Authorised Representative is that the sum of "25,00,00,000/- received by the assessee as corpus donation could ITA Nos.406 & 407/Mds/2017 :- 19 -: not be roped in as income u/s. 2(24)(iva) of the Act. There

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

144A of the Act,had stated as under: "S 9(1)(vi)(b) itself provides the exception. If the Resident- assessee utilizes the services of the Non-resident, in its business outside India, it is covered under the exception given in the section itself and the payment received by the non-resident cannot be deemed to accrue or arise

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

144A of the Act,had stated as under: "S 9(1)(vi)(b) itself provides the exception. If the Resident- assessee utilizes the services of the Non-resident, in its business outside India, it is covered under the exception given in the section itself and the payment received by the non-resident cannot be deemed to accrue or arise

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144A of the Act,had stated as under: "S 9(1)(vi)(b) itself provides the exception. If the Resident-assessee utilizes the services of the Non-resident, in its business outside India, it is covered under the exception given in the section itself and the payment received by the non-resident cannot be deemed to accrue or arise

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144A of the Act,had stated as under: "S 9(1)(vi)(b) itself provides the exception. If the Resident-assessee utilizes the services of the Non-resident, in its business outside India, it is covered under the exception given in the section itself and the payment received by the non-resident cannot be deemed to accrue or arise

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI vs. MS VA TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

TDS u/s.195 of the Act and hence, he disallowed the payments\nmade on account of engineering services rendered by third parties outside\nIndia by holding the same as if for technical services and added back to the\nreturned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred\nobjections before DRP.\n23. The DRP accepted the objections of the assessee and reverse

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), CHENNAI

TDS u/s.195 of the Act and hence, he disallowed the payments\nmade on account of engineering services rendered by third parties outside\nIndia by holding the same as if for technical services and added back to the\nreturned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred\nobjections before DRP.\n23. The DRP accepted the objections of the assessee and reverse

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

TDS. Page - 3 - of 13 ITA No. 511 /Chny/2025 5.0 The PCIT- 4 Chennai premised that the mistake concerning treatment of short time capital gains as long time capital gains and business income as income from house property were not amenable to action u/s 154 without detailed enquiry and verification and that by doing so, the Ld.AO has passed

ITO, CHENNAI vs. ALAMELU SURESH, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.410/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-2009)

Section 40(a) (ia). The details of such payments are listed below: Sl.No Name of Parties Telecast fee expenses 1 Social Media 2,49,079 2 Siegu Solutions Ltd 84,660 3 SAREGAMA 3,42,390 4 Pyramid Saimira 4,07,505 5 New Age Entertainment Pvt. Ltd 57,895 6 Adlabs Films Ltd 47,278 7 Balaji Telefilms