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

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

M/S LAMPMASTER WOLTERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO , TDS WARD 2(2) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.590 To 592/Chny/2022 & Stay Application Nos.47 To 49/Chny/2022 (In Ita Nos.590 To 592/Chny/2022) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S. Lampmaster Wolters India Pvt.Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer, Survey No.229, Tds Ward – 2(2), Chennai. 92,Sidco Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Sriperumbudur Tk Kanchipuram. Pan: Aaacl 9840N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS Ward – 2(2), Chennai. 92,SIDCO Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Sriperumbudur TK Kanchipuram. PAN: AAACL 9840N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mrs. Jharna B.Harilal, C.A अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar,JCIT ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by 29.07.2022 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of hearing : 29 .07.2022 : घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश

M/S LAMPMASTER WOLTERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO , TDS WARD 2(2) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.590 To 592/Chny/2022 & Stay Application Nos.47 To 49/Chny/2022 (In Ita Nos.590 To 592/Chny/2022) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S. Lampmaster Wolters India Pvt.Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer, Survey No.229, Tds Ward – 2(2), Chennai. 92,Sidco Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Sriperumbudur Tk Kanchipuram. Pan: Aaacl 9840N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS Ward – 2(2), Chennai. 92,SIDCO Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Sriperumbudur TK Kanchipuram. PAN: AAACL 9840N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mrs. Jharna B.Harilal, C.A अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar,JCIT ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by 29.07.2022 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of hearing : 29 .07.2022 : घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश

M/S LAMPMASTER WOLTERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO , TDS WARD 2(2) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.590 To 592/Chny/2022 & Stay Application Nos.47 To 49/Chny/2022 (In Ita Nos.590 To 592/Chny/2022) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S. Lampmaster Wolters India Pvt.Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer, Survey No.229, Tds Ward – 2(2), Chennai. 92,Sidco Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Sriperumbudur Tk Kanchipuram. Pan: Aaacl 9840N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS Ward – 2(2), Chennai. 92,SIDCO Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Sriperumbudur TK Kanchipuram. PAN: AAACL 9840N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mrs. Jharna B.Harilal, C.A अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar,JCIT ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by 29.07.2022 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of hearing : 29 .07.2022 : घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

190 (Mad), held that the mere fact that the appellant retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The Hon'ble High Court held that "the burden lay on the appellant to show that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by a strong

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

190 (Mad), held that the mere fact that the appellant retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The Hon'ble High Court held that "the burden lay on the appellant to show that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by a strong

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

190 (Mad), held that the mere fact that the appellant retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The Hon'ble High Court held that "the burden lay on the appellant to show that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by a strong

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

190 (Mad), held that the mere fact that the appellant retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The Hon'ble High Court held that "the burden lay on the appellant to show that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by a strong

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

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

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)

TDS was made. The payment 11 I.T.A. Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/15 made for centring work is nothing but sub-contract. Therefore, the assessee is liable to deduct tax under Section 194C of the Act. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee is liable to deduct tax in respect of all the payments made. Therefore

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

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

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)

TDS was made. The payment 11 I.T.A. Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/15 made for centring work is nothing but sub-contract. Therefore, the assessee is liable to deduct tax under Section 194C of the Act. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee is liable to deduct tax in respect of all the payments made. Therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act to the tune of Rs.1,56,23,813/- stands disallowed u/s.40a(ia) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and is sustained. The alternate plea raised by the appellant is not entertained as disallowance u/s.40a(ia) is for a specific violation as prescribed in the Act and the disallowance does not serve

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act to the tune of Rs.1,56,23,813/- stands disallowed u/s.40a(ia) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and is sustained. The alternate plea raised by the appellant is not entertained as disallowance u/s.40a(ia) is for a specific violation as prescribed in the Act and the disallowance does not serve

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act to the tune of Rs.1,56,23,813/- stands disallowed u/s.40a(ia) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and is sustained. The alternate plea raised by the appellant is not entertained as disallowance u/s.40a(ia) is for a specific violation as prescribed in the Act and the disallowance does not serve

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, TRICHY vs. M/S. RAJA TRANSPORTS,, ARIYALUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.722/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Raja Transports, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), No. 34, Trichy Main Road, No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Ariyalur 621 704. Trichy 620 001. [Pan:Aaefr4385H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.619/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/S. Raja Transports, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ariyalur 621 704. Trichy 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &’ : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 19.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2

190/-. 4. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing 3 I.T.A. Nos. 722 & 619/Chny/20 Officer has recorded the reasons for reopening of assessment and the same are reproduced as under: The assessee firm claimed expenditure under ‘other expenses’ to the tune

M/S. RAJA TRANSPORTS,,ARIYALUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.722/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Raja Transports, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), No. 34, Trichy Main Road, No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Ariyalur 621 704. Trichy 620 001. [Pan:Aaefr4385H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.619/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/S. Raja Transports, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ariyalur 621 704. Trichy 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &’ : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 19.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2

190/-. 4. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing 3 I.T.A. Nos. 722 & 619/Chny/20 Officer has recorded the reasons for reopening of assessment and the same are reproduced as under: The assessee firm claimed expenditure under ‘other expenses’ to the tune

ITO,, TUTICORIN vs. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED,, TUTICORIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 7.The learned CIT(A) ought to have noticed the case of B.V.K. Seshavataram vs CIT (1994) 210 ITR 633 (A), has held that subsequent decision of the Supreme Court can form basis of order of rectification. In the case of CED vs. V.G.Badmia (1990) 186 ITR 170 (Bombay) the Tribunal was held