DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

TDS, at Vellore and Chennai have been treated as not genuine and as diversion to the Trustees! xi. Considering all the above facts and that wherever it was possible the appellant had made cheque payment also and wherever it was not possible it made cash payment and further considering the fact that the cash expenditure is higher than that incurred

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

TDS, at Vellore and Chennai have been treated as not genuine and as diversion to the Trustees! xi. Considering all the above facts and that wherever it was possible the appellant had made cheque payment also and wherever it was not possible it made cash payment and further considering the fact that the cash expenditure is higher than that incurred

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer to follow jurisdictional Tribunal decision and allowed

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer to follow jurisdictional Tribunal decision and allowed

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer to follow jurisdictional Tribunal decision and allowed

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer to follow jurisdictional Tribunal decision and allowed

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer to follow jurisdictional Tribunal decision and allowed

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer to follow jurisdictional Tribunal decision and allowed

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer to follow jurisdictional Tribunal decision and allowed

M/S. CASTLEWICK FZE,DUBAI vs. ACIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

TDS was\nrequired to be deducted on the said payments to Castlewick FZE.\nAccordingly, the A.O. is not justified in holding the appellant as ‘assessee\nin default' u/s.201(1) of the Act. The A.O. is directed to delete the demand\nraised 201(1) of the Act.\n10.\nThe Ld.DR was unable to place on record any material to show\nthat

VANITHA TEXTILES,PALLADAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

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

TDS provisions. The assessee preferred further appeal against the same and submitted that the dues were deposited well before due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1). However, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowances in terms of amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 in Sec. 36(1)(va) as well as in Sec. 43B. The disallowance

M/S SREE LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD.,PALLADAM vs. DCIT,CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

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

TDS provisions. The assessee preferred further appeal against the same and submitted that the dues were deposited well before due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1). However, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowances in terms of amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 in Sec. 36 as well as in Sec. 43B. Aggrieved, the assessee

THE KTM JEWELLERY LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CORPORAE CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation, Sec. 43B would

DCIT , TDS CIRCLE , COIMBATORE vs. M/S KOVAI MEDICAL CENTRE AND HOSPITAL LIMITED , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1004/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Kovai Medical Centre & Income Tax, V. Hospital Limited, Tds Circle, 99 Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore - 641 014. [Pan: Aaack-9192-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit -Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

section 194C of the Act. The AO, held that payment made to AMC providers is nothing but fees for technical services as defined u/s. 194J of the Act and on it, the assessee should have deducted TDS @10% but not 2% as applicable to works contract. Therefore, rejected arguments of the assessee and computed short deduction of TDS

M/S POTHYS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 1360/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Pothys, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.15, Dr.Nageswara Rao Road, Income Tax, T. Nagar, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaffp 2437B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate For Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

173/- includes the late fee paid on TDS and the interest paid on belated payment of GST. The assessing officer vide order dated 29.09.2022 disallowed both claims and added back to the returned income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the order of ld. A.O. dated 29.09.2022, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions

BASF CATALYSTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and DTAA between India and Germany and the assessee is liable to pay TDS. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon plethora of judicial precedence and relevant case law cited in the form of paper book by the assessee are as under: 1. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber

BASF CATALYSTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and DTAA between India and Germany and the assessee is liable to pay TDS. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon plethora of judicial precedence and relevant case law cited in the form of paper book by the assessee are as under: 1. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber

BASF CATALYSTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and DTAA between India and Germany and the assessee is liable to pay TDS. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon plethora of judicial precedence and relevant case law cited in the form of paper book by the assessee are as under: 1. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber