UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are

38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the Act vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons recorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3 to 7 are allowed. 42. Ground Nos. 2(b) along

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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

2(9) of Insurance Act, 1938 as it stood before amendment in 2014, is applicable to the payment of re-insurance premium to non-resident re-insurance company, the assessee is liable to deduct tax. Therefore, the above decisions of Mumbai Bench and Pune Bench of this Tribunal also may not be of any assistance to the assessee

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)

38. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the re-insurance premium was paid to non-resident companies contrary to the provisions of 42 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 Insurance Act. Moreover, the TDS was not made

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)

38. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the re-insurance premium was paid to non-resident companies contrary to the provisions of 42 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 Insurance Act. Moreover, the TDS was not made

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)

38. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the re-insurance premium was paid to non-resident companies contrary to the provisions of 42 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 Insurance Act. Moreover, the TDS was not made

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)

38. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the re-insurance premium was paid to non-resident companies contrary to the provisions of 42 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 Insurance Act. Moreover, the TDS was not made

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)

38. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the re-insurance premium was paid to non-resident companies contrary to the provisions of 42 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 Insurance Act. Moreover, the TDS was not made

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.

38 I.T.A. No.744/Chny/17 roads, etc., Moreover, a 10% of the lands have to be ceded to the Government/ Corporation, as per the Development rules. In addition the Tamil Nadu Government has also reduced the guideline value by 1/3rd in June, 2017, as the earlier guideline value fixed (as on 01/04/2012) was found to be very high. These issues were

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the Act vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons recorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3 to 7 are allowed. 42. Ground Nos. 2(b) along