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.

121 results for “TDS”+ Section 155clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai407Delhi358Bangalore127Chennai121Karnataka106Chandigarh86Cochin75Ahmedabad73Kolkata63Jaipur45Raipur44Pune26Rajkot25Cuttack23Dehradun22Hyderabad15Visakhapatnam12Indore12Lucknow11Surat7Jabalpur6Nagpur6Allahabad4SC4Jodhpur3Amritsar2Telangana2Varanasi2Agra2Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 4071Disallowance63Deduction53Section 143(3)52TDS51Addition to Income42Section 19534Section 115J32Section 15432Section 14A

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 670/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40

TDS under section 195 of the Act was not made on the payment of commission. It was the submission before the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not liable for tax in India due to the fact that 7 I.T.A. Nos.668-671/Chny/15 the services were rendered by the non-resident outside India. However, the Assessing Officer has not accepted the submissions

Showing 1–20 of 121 · Page 1 of 7

23
Section 80P(2)(a)21
Section 14715

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 669/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40

TDS under section 195 of the Act was not made on the payment of commission. It was the submission before the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not liable for tax in India due to the fact that 7 I.T.A. Nos.668-671/Chny/15 the services were rendered by the non-resident outside India. However, the Assessing Officer has not accepted the submissions

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 671/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40

TDS under section 195 of the Act was not made on the payment of commission. It was the submission before the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not liable for tax in India due to the fact that 7 I.T.A. Nos.668-671/Chny/15 the services were rendered by the non-resident outside India. However, the Assessing Officer has not accepted the submissions

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 668/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40

TDS under section 195 of the Act was not made on the payment of commission. It was the submission before the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not liable for tax in India due to the fact that 7 I.T.A. Nos.668-671/Chny/15 the services were rendered by the non-resident outside India. However, the Assessing Officer has not accepted the submissions

DASSAULT SYSTEMES SIMULIA CORP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-1 (1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 349/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.349/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers, International Taxation 1(1) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aadcd 3705D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 155(14)

TDS credit available as per Form 26AS of the appellant. 2.3. The Ld. AO and DRP has erred in law and on facts in applying the proviso to Section 155

FUJI ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Siddhesh Chaugula, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 92C

155 (Cochin ITAT) These decisions reinforce that TDS liability arises only when income accrues to the payee. In view of the above, the Appellant respectfully submits that: • Provisions for ASP charges and sales commission are legitimate business expenditures allowable under Section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ISIS EXPORTS P LTD., CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1964/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1963/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Srividya, CA
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

TDS u/s40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, are not justified and deleted.” Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal. We have heard both parties and gone through the case file. 5. The only issue for our consideration is as to whether the assessee’s commission payments made to its overseas agents in lieu of procuring I.T.A.Nos. 1963 & 1964/14

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INDIA SHOES EXPORTS P. LTD., CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1963/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1963/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Srividya, CA
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

TDS u/s40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, are not justified and deleted.” Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal. We have heard both parties and gone through the case file. 5. The only issue for our consideration is as to whether the assessee’s commission payments made to its overseas agents in lieu of procuring I.T.A.Nos. 1963 & 1964/14

P.S.SHEKAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1029/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)

155 or sub- section (4) of section 186, no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed.” 6.1 However, the ld.counsel for the assessee has made submissions that in case the petitioner wishes to file a rectification application

P.S.JAGDISH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1028/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)

155 or sub- section (4) of section 186, no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed.” 6.1 However, the ld.counsel for the assessee has made submissions that in case the petitioner wishes to file a rectification application

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 407/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2014-15

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)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of sub-clause (b) as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections : Provided further that this clause shall not apply to any sum of money or any property received— (a) from any relative

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 406/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of sub-clause (b) as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections : Provided further that this clause shall not apply to any sum of money or any property received— (a) from any relative

DASSAULT SYSTEMES SIMULIA CORP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 365/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Dassault Systems Simulia Corp Dcit C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, International Taxation-1(1), बनाम/ 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers Chennai. Vs. 52, Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcd-3705-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 155(14)Section 199

TDS shall be given in the assessment year for which such income is assessable. 1.6. The learned AO and DRP failed to appreciate the fact that proviso to Section 155

M.ARUNACHALAM AND COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1352/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S M. Arunachalam & Company, The Joint / Assistant No.117/79, Lloyds Road, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Business Range Viii, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaafm 6851 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. Chandrasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

TDS on such expenses are disallowed”. Having held so was it open to the Tribunal to seek to justify that “this fiction cannot be extended any further 15 I.T.A. Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/15 and, therefore, cannot be invoked by Assessing Officer to disallow the genuine and reasonable expenditure on the amounts of expenditure already paid”? Does this not amount to deliberately reading

M.ARUNACHALAM AND COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1353/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S M. Arunachalam & Company, The Joint / Assistant No.117/79, Lloyds Road, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Business Range Viii, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaafm 6851 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. Chandrasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

TDS on such expenses are disallowed”. Having held so was it open to the Tribunal to seek to justify that “this fiction cannot be extended any further 15 I.T.A. Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/15 and, therefore, cannot be invoked by Assessing Officer to disallow the genuine and reasonable expenditure on the amounts of expenditure already paid”? Does this not amount to deliberately reading

FAURECIA EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1) CHE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1223/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1223/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2023-24 Faurecia Emissions Control Assistant Commissioner Of Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.634, Karumuthu Center, Corporate Circle-1(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai-600 035 [Pan: Aaaca8450F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Siddhesh Chaugula, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Siddhesh Chaugula, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

155;] (ii) the amount of compulsory deposit, if any, claimed to have been made under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974 (38 of 1974)* ; 24[(ca) the return is accompanied by the proof of payment of tax as required under section 140B, if the return of income is a return furnished under sub-section (8A);] (d) where

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 672/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

TDS in terms of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, which was also confirmed by the terms of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, which was also confirmed by the terms of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, which was also confirmed by the DRP. 7.2 Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. Aggrieved, the assessee is before

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI vs. METRO TUNNELLING CHENNAI L & T SUCG JV, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2969/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sundararajan, IRS, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 199

TDS of :- 3 -: Rs.4,63,83,155/- received from Chennai Metro Rail Limited on the ground that corresponding income was not offered to tax. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order had directed the Assessing Officer to give credit to the extent of income offered to tax Rs.1

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 529/CHNY/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

155 wherein it has been held as follows(headnote): "Replacement of worn out parts does not by itself bring in a new asset. In considering the nature of an expenditure one should consider the productive unit as a whole and not pick out parts therein which are new. If the productive unit to the assessee remains the same

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATIONLIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 177/CHNY/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

155 wherein it has been held as follows(headnote): "Replacement of worn out parts does not by itself bring in a new asset. In considering the nature of an expenditure one should consider the productive unit as a whole and not pick out parts therein which are new. If the productive unit to the assessee remains the same