DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS was not made while making re- insurance premium to the non-resident companies. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessments. 39. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that for the assessment years

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS was not made while making re- insurance premium to the non-resident companies. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessments. 39. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that for the assessment years

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS was not made while making re- insurance premium to the non-resident companies. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessments. 39. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that for the assessment years

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS was not made while making re- insurance premium to the non-resident companies. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessments. 39. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that for the assessment years

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS was not made while making re- insurance premium to the non-resident companies. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessments. 39. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that for the assessment years

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

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

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

3) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessment was reopened beyond four years. For the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for second time after four years. The Madras High Court

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

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

3) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessment was reopened beyond four years. For the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for second time after four years. The Madras High Court

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

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

3) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessment was reopened beyond four years. For the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for second time after four years. The Madras High Court

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

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

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

3) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessment was reopened beyond four years. For the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for second time after four years. The Madras High Court

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

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

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

3) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessment was reopened beyond four years. For the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for second time after four years. The Madras High Court

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

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

3) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessment was reopened beyond four years. For the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for second time after four years. The Madras High Court

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

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

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

3) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessment was reopened beyond four years. For the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for second time after four years. The Madras High Court

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

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

3) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessment was reopened beyond four years. For the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for second time after four years. The Madras High Court

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

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

3) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessment was reopened beyond four years. For the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for second time after four years. The Madras High Court

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

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

3) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessment was reopened beyond four years. For the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for second time after four years. The Madras High Court

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

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

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

3) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessment was reopened beyond four years. For the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for second time after four years. The Madras High Court

COSMOPOLITAN CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

TDS credit cannot be denied merely because the income is exempt. Rule 37BA(3)(i) applies to cases where income is assessable in a different year. In this case, the income was assessable in the current year but not taxed due to mutuality.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "154", "143(1)", "37BA(3)(i)", "199

VNC STEEL DISTRIBUTORS,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1937/Chny/2024 & Stay Petition No: 40/Chny/2024 [In Ita No: 1937/Chny/2024)] िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vnc Steel Distributors, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, S. Vellalapatti, Circle -1(1), Karur – 639 004. Trichy. [Pan: Aadfv-9137-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

3 of the appeal raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 9.2. The appellant's submissions have been considered. It is seen that the appellant had not deducted TDS under 194C on payments made towards expenditure on meet and events. The appellant has stated that these expenses were incurred on purchase of travel tickets, food expenses, stationery for promotional meets