DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

161 The provisions of Section 194J(1) of the IT Act cast liability on the persons responsible for paying to resident any sum by way of fees for professional services. The assessee availed the professional services and responsible for paying fees to M/s Paramount Health Services TPA PVt. Ltd. Further, in the explanation of section 40(a), 'Professional Services' have

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

161 The provisions of Section 194J(1) of the IT Act cast liability on the persons responsible for paying to resident any sum by way of fees for professional services. The assessee availed the professional services and responsible for paying fees to M/s Paramount Health Services TPA PVt. Ltd. Further, in the explanation of section 40(a), 'Professional Services' have

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

161\nThe provisions of Section 194J(1) of the IT Act cast liability on the persons\nresponsible for paying to resident any sum by way of fees for professional\nservices. The assessee availed the professional services and responsible for\npaying fees to M/s Paramount Health Services TPA PVt. Ltd. Further, in the\nexplanation of section 40(a), 'Professional Services' have

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

161\nThe provisions of Section 194J(1) of the IT Act cast liability on the persons\nresponsible for paying to resident any sum by way of fees for professional\nservices. The assessee availed the professional services and responsible for\npaying fees to M/s Paramount Health Services TPA PVt. Ltd. Further, in the\nexplanation of section 40(a), 'Professional Services' have

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

161\nThe provisions of Section 194J(1) of the IT Act cast liability on the persons\nresponsible for paying to resident any sum by way of fees for professional\nservices. The assessee availed the professional services and responsible for\npaying fees to M/s Paramount Health Services TPA PVt. Ltd. Further, in the\nexplanation of section 40(a), 'Professional Services' have

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

161\nThe provisions of Section 194J(1) of the IT Act cast liability on the persons\nresponsible for paying to resident any sum by way of fees for professional\nservices. The assessee availed the professional services and responsible for\npaying fees to M/s Paramount Health Services TPA PVt. Ltd. Further, in the\nexplanation of section 40(a), 'Professional Services' have

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

161\nThe provisions of Section 194J(1) of the IT Act cast liability on the persons\nresponsible for paying to resident any sum by way of fees for professional\nservices. The assessee availed the professional services and responsible for\npaying fees to M/s Paramount Health Services TPA PVt. Ltd. Further, in the\nexplanation of section 40(a), 'Professional Services' have

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

161\nThe provisions of Section 194J(1) of the IT Act cast liability on the persons\nresponsible for paying to resident any sum by way of fees for professional\nservices. The assessee availed the professional services and responsible for\npaying fees to M/s Paramount Health Services TPA PVt. Ltd. Further, in the\nexplanation of section 40(a), 'Professional Services' have

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

161\nThe provisions of Section 194J(1) of the IT Act cast liability on the persons\nresponsible for paying to resident any sum by way of fees for professional\nservices. The assessee availed the professional services and responsible for\npaying fees to M/s Paramount Health Services TPA PVt. Ltd. Further, in the\nexplanation of section 40(a), 'Professional Services' have

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

161\nThe provisions of Section 194J(1) of the IT Act cast liability on the persons\nresponsible for paying to resident any sum by way of fees for professional\nservices. The assessee availed the professional services and responsible for\npaying fees to M/s Paramount Health Services TPA PVt. Ltd. Further, in the\nexplanation of section 40(a), 'Professional Services' have

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)

161 and it also states that he is not liable to such assessment under any other provisions of the Act. Section 164 sets out only how such tax shall be charged when the income is not distributed and when the income is distributed. It does appear, therefore, that section 164 cannot be read as being a code in itself applicable

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)

161 and it also states that he is not liable to such assessment under any other provisions of the Act. Section 164 sets out only how such tax shall be charged when the income is not distributed and when the income is distributed. It does appear, therefore, that section 164 cannot be read as being a code in itself applicable

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

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

161 SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN TERMS OF SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT :-6-: ITA. No.:1018/Chny/2025 4. 29.06.2021 Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act 163 5. 19.09.2021 Reply to Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act 171 dated 29.06.2021 6. - Details of creditors 179 7. - Details of depreciation 180 8. - Detail of default statement

FAIVELEY TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

TDS deducted. e) Amount payable at the end of the financial year. The assessee vide letter dated 21/22.01.2021 (Pg 32 of paper book) has submitted following details with required annexure:- a Nature of business and activities undertaken Annexure 5.1 ITA No.1598 /Chny/2024 b Separate books of accounts Annexure 5.2 List of business premises and godowns Submission made

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

1. CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement (SC) 2. S Zoraster & Co., VsCIT (322 ITE 59) (Mad.) 3. CIT V Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (161 ITR 386) (SC) 4. CIT V T.I & M Sales Limited (250 TR 116) (Mad.) 5. CIT Madras V South India Flour us India P Ltd.(75 ITR 147)(Mad.) 6. Pane Soft Drinks P Ltd Vs JCIT

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

1. CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement (SC) 2. S Zoraster & Co., VsCIT (322 ITE 59) (Mad.) 3. CIT V Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (161 ITR 386) (SC) 4. CIT V T.I & M Sales Limited (250 TR 116) (Mad.) 5. CIT Madras V South India Flour us India P Ltd.(75 ITR 147)(Mad.) 6. Pane Soft Drinks P Ltd Vs JCIT

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

1. CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement (SC) 2. S Zoraster & Co., VsCIT (322 ITE 59) (Mad.) 3. CIT V Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (161 ITR 386) (SC) 4. CIT V T.I & M Sales Limited (250 TR 116) (Mad.) 5. CIT Madras V South India Flour us India P Ltd.(75 ITR 147)(Mad.) 6. Pane Soft Drinks P Ltd Vs JCIT

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

1. CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement (SC) 2. S Zoraster & Co., VsCIT (322 ITE 59) (Mad.) 3. CIT V Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (161 ITR 386) (SC) 4. CIT V T.I & M Sales Limited (250 TR 116) (Mad.) 5. CIT Madras V South India Flour us India P Ltd.(75 ITR 147)(Mad.) 6. Pane Soft Drinks P Ltd Vs JCIT

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section (9)(1 )(iv) of the Act.” Thus, it cannot be said that as this. Partnership Deed is an agreement between the parties. It does not create any charge on the income of the assessee. ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 16 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells 11. This Charge over the income of the assessee is created in favour