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

220(2), which being consequential to an invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsus invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsustainable. tainable. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify or raise The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify or raise The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify or raise additional grounds at the time

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

220(2), which being consequential to an invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsus invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsustainable. tainable. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify or raise The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify or raise The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify or raise additional grounds at the time

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

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

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220(2

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

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

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220(2

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

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

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220(2

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

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

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220(2

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

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

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220(2

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

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

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220(2

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

K.R.DEVENDRIER SON,SALEM vs. ITO TDS WARD, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2953/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 K.R. Devendrier Son, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 176, Fort Main Road, Shevapet, Tds Ward, 3, Gandhi Road, Salem 636 002. Salem 636 007. [Pan: Aacfk0776D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. S. Sriniranjini, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Duvvuru R.L.Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Dated 29.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Fees Levied Under Section 234E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220(2

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), INTERNTIONAL TAXATION, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PETROFAC ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD,,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for both

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.656 & 657/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs M/S. Petrofac Engineering The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Pvt.Ltd. 7Th Floor, Block 9A Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai. Dlf Infocity Sez 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Nandambakkam Post Manapakkam, Chennai-600089. Pan: Aaecp 1211H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2(ffc) only in 1994 vide Act 38 of 1994 [Para 77] • Furthermore, it is equally ludicrous for the aforesaid amendment which also inserted Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi), of the Income-tax Act to apply with effect from 1-6- 1976, when technology relating to transmission by a satellite, optic fibre or other similar technology, was only

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PETROFAC ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for both

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.656 & 657/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs M/S. Petrofac Engineering The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Pvt.Ltd. 7Th Floor, Block 9A Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai. Dlf Infocity Sez 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Nandambakkam Post Manapakkam, Chennai-600089. Pan: Aaecp 1211H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2(ffc) only in 1994 vide Act 38 of 1994 [Para 77] • Furthermore, it is equally ludicrous for the aforesaid amendment which also inserted Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi), of the Income-tax Act to apply with effect from 1-6- 1976, when technology relating to transmission by a satellite, optic fibre or other similar technology, was only

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

2: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software

ORAGADAM CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, Addition u/s

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

section 56(2)(viib), issuance of shares during the year constitutes the relevant taxable event. 3.5 Next question is whether AO can substitute DCF valuation? The crucial question is whether the AO, after the assessee adopts DCF method under Rule 11UA(2), can modify assumptions and recompute valuation. Rule 11UA(2) provides that FMV shall be: (i) as determined