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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

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)

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure 16 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 with Indian re-insurer such percentage

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)

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure 16 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 with Indian re-insurer such percentage

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)

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure 16 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 with Indian re-insurer such percentage

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)

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure 16 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 with Indian re-insurer such percentage

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)

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure 16 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 with Indian re-insurer such percentage

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

2(47)(v) is not applicable to IDA cases is not tenable as the appellant has rendered a clear GPA by a registered power on 17.09.2012. The same has rendered full powers to developer to take physical possession of land for planning, design and to obtain all statutory approvals to start the project. Developer gets a civil right to construct

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD 1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under dispute on the aspect that the TDS