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)

ix) bullion; (e) "relative" means,— (i) in case of an individual— (A) spouse of the individual; (B) brother or sister of the individual; (C) brother or sister of the spouse of the individual; (D) brother or sister of either of the parents of the individual; (E) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the individual; (F) any lineal ascendant or descendant

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

24 -: of sub-section (3) of section 32A, clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred

MADRAS RACE CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656 & 657/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13. M/S. Madras Race Club Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Race Course Road, Income Tax, Guindy, Tds Circle –I, Chennai 600 032. Chennai [Pan Aaacm 7640R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 2(24)(ix) of the Act to hold 'that the stake money is squarely covered by the definition of "games and other games of any sort". Thus, the AO rejected the ITA No.646 to 657/2015 :- 5 -: contention of the assessee that it is not liable to deduct tax on the stake money paid. The AO also rejected the contention

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , COIMBATORE vs. M/S POOJA MARKETING, MALAD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

TDS should have been deducted u/s 194G at lower rate of 5%. Having reported the winnings separately by the assessee in its financial statements, AO was right is taxing the same u/s 2(24)(ix) and apply consequential provisions. It has also been urged by the revenue that the aforesaid decision of Mumbai Tribunal was in the context of challenge

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , COIMBATORE vs. M/S POOJA MARKETING, MALAD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

TDS should have been deducted u/s 194G at lower rate of 5%. Having reported the winnings separately by the assessee in its financial statements, AO was right is taxing the same u/s 2(24)(ix) and apply consequential provisions. It has also been urged by the revenue that the aforesaid decision of Mumbai Tribunal was in the context of challenge

M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS on transfer of immovable property (other than agricultural land) above\na prescribed threshold.\n• TCS on trading in coal, lignite, and iron ore.\n• Enhanced onus of proof on closely held companies for funds received\nfrom shareholders, and taxation of share premium in excess of fair\nmarket value.\n• Taxation of unexplained money, credits, investments, or expenditures

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

ix). We are therefore in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that these fixed assets were in the nature of 'plant & machinery' and hence the assessee had rightly claimed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the same. The Ld. CIT, DR appearing before us are was unable to controvert the same. We therefore

SIVAKARTHICK RAMAN,MADURAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:281/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sivakarthick Raman, The Assistant Commissioner Of 5/200, 2Nd Street, Alagupillai Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, T.Pudukudi, International Taxation Circle, Achampathu, Madurai. Madurai – 625 019. [Pan: Ajnpr-3214-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

ix) The Learned DRP has incorrectly held that as the Salary was received in India from BMW India, the employer is BMW India (Para 17 of the impugned order) (x) The Learned DRP has incorrectly held that Assessee has not demonstrated that any tax has been paid voluntarily or otherwise to the Chinese Government. (Para 6.6.3) (xi) The Learned

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

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

24)(ix) income includes any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any Provident Fund and ESI. As per section 36(1)(va), the same is allowable only if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date under the relevant

V.UMAYAL,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.714/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

2) The learned CIT(A), ought to have held that “tax due on the returned income” under Explanation to Section 234C of the I.T.Act, 1961, means the “tax chargeable on the total income declared in the return furnished by the Appellant u/s.139(1) of the Act”, and not on the basis of a second return filed in response

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

24. We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessees that a narrow meaning ought to be ascribed to the expression "in relation to" appearing in section 14A of the said act. The context does not suggest that a narrow meaning ought to be given to the said expression. It is pertinent

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

24. We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessees that a narrow meaning ought to be ascribed to the expression "in relation to" appearing in section 14A of the said act. The context does not suggest that a narrow meaning ought to be given to the said expression. It is pertinent

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Hyundai Motor India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park Income Tax, Irrungattukottai, 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Sriperumbudur Taluk, Ring Road, Kancheepuram District, Anna Nagar Western Tamil Nadu-602117 Extension, Chennai-600101 [Pan: Aaach2364M] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

2. The grounds of appeal No. 35 and 37 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with the tribunal in ITA No. 842/Chny/2016 for ay: 2011-12, read as under:- “Issue 5: Other Issues 35. The learned AO erred in not following the directions of the DRP and levying excess interest under Section 234C

VIRUDHUNAGAR CENTRAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Shri Abraham P. George & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-2014. The Virudhunagar District Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tds Ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [Pan Aaaau 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [PAN AAAAU 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. C. Maruthappan, C.A. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 08-10-2018 : 09-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश

VIRUDHUNAGAR CENTRAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Shri Abraham P. George & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-2014. The Virudhunagar District Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tds Ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [Pan Aaaau 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [PAN AAAAU 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. C. Maruthappan, C.A. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 08-10-2018 : 09-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश

ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI vs. SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

TDS authorities u/s.201(1) of the IT Act. 4.3.2 I have perused the ITAT's order in the appellant's case in assessment orders from 2009-10 to 2015-16 dated 23.10.2017. The relevant portion of the ITATs decision is reproduced hereunder for ready references: "Provisions of DTAA being more beneficial to the assesse. Assessee was in our opinion justified

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

TDS, TCS and advance tax claimed by the Appellant in its return of income.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, rescind, forgo or withdraw any\nof the above grounds of objection either before or during the course of the CIT (Appeal)\nproceedings in the interest of natural justice.\nITA No.: 1763/CHNY/2024 AY 2017-18\n1. The order

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

ix) Regarding expenses which are described by the Tribunal and one of the reason is that it is always for the assessee to allow any special allowance or expenses to promote the sale. In a competitive world to promote the sale, if the Distributor is not given any encouragement, the business will not grow. In that view of the matter

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

ix) Regarding expenses which are described by the Tribunal and one of the reason is that it is always for the assessee to allow any special allowance or expenses to promote the sale. In a competitive world to promote the sale, if the Distributor is not given any encouragement, the business will not grow. In that view of the matter