M/S MADRAS RACE CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPO CIRCLE 4 (1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

sections. (b) in respect of transport subsidy also, we notice that the assessee has met part of transportation expenses incurred by the horse owners in the form of reimbursement made to them. The primary liability to deduct TDS would lie upon the horse owners, since they have incurred the cost of transportation. The assessee has only reimbursed part of transportation

DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD,HARYANA vs. JCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1885/Chny/2017 & 665/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2013-14 Doosan Power Systems India The Jcit / Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle -1(1), 16Th Floor, Dlf Square, Chennai. Jacaranda Marg, Near Nh-8, Dlf Phase-Ii, Gurgaon – 122 002. Pan: Aabcb 5946J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

227 to 247. The ld.counsel stated that once these details are available now before Tribunal either Tribunal can decide the issue or matter can be referred back to the file have sales or not. 9. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR has not objected for remitting the matter back to the file of the TPO but he stated that

DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1885/Chny/2017 & 665/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2013-14 Doosan Power Systems India The Jcit / Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle -1(1), 16Th Floor, Dlf Square, Chennai. Jacaranda Marg, Near Nh-8, Dlf Phase-Ii, Gurgaon – 122 002. Pan: Aabcb 5946J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

227 to 247. The ld.counsel stated that once these details are available now before Tribunal either Tribunal can decide the issue or matter can be referred back to the file have sales or not. 9. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR has not objected for remitting the matter back to the file of the TPO but he stated that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PARRYWARE ROCA PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

227 of the paper-book. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee is a full- fledged risk bearing distributor. 5. Inspite of the clear and categorical function performed by the assessee, according to the Ld.counsel for the assessee, the Transfer Pricing Officer observed in the transfer pricing order as if the assessee is a ‘captive’, ‘routine’, full-fledged distributor

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

227 of the paper-book. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee is a full- fledged risk bearing distributor. 5. Inspite of the clear and categorical function performed by the assessee, according to the Ld.counsel for the assessee, the Transfer Pricing Officer observed in the transfer pricing order as if the assessee is a ‘captive’, ‘routine’, full-fledged distributor

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

227) and Honda Siel Power Products Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT Honda Siel Power Products Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT Honda Siel Power Products Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (237 taxman 304). He also relied upon several decisions of the Tribunal . He also relied upon several decisions of the Tribunal . He also relied upon several decisions of the Tribunal rendered following the foregoing

M/S EURO HOMES ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our observation given herein above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 668/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Euro Homes, Deputy Commissioner Of Lakshmi Plaza, Ground Floor, V. Income Tax, 1087 Avinashi Road, Cpc, Bengaluru. Near Lakshmi Mills Junction, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfe-9073-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. N.V Lakshmi, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023

section 194H of the Act. Thus, we direct the AO :-6-: ITA. No: 668/Chny/2022 to include incentives received amounting to Rs. 3,95,421/- as part of business turnover for the purpose of determination of income u/s. 44AD of the Act and deleted addition made under the head income from other sources. 6. In so far as, expenses reimbursement amount

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

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

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

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

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

UDAYAKUMAR RUDRAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS on Rent, Commission, Advertisements and Salary Payments. To summarize the above, 1. Prayer by the assessee to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to verify if the payees have declared the receipt from the Assessee in their return of income and if they have so declared then the addition u/s. 40(i)(ia) of the Act should

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS was not deducted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is with regard to confirmation of disallowance of ₹.21, 44,516/-. The assessee has claimed interest paid to SBI at ₹.21,44,516/- on account of term loan taken

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS was not deducted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is with regard to confirmation of disallowance of ₹.21, 44,516/-. The assessee has claimed interest paid to SBI at ₹.21,44,516/- on account of term loan taken

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS was not deducted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is with regard to confirmation of disallowance of ₹.21, 44,516/-. The assessee has claimed interest paid to SBI at ₹.21,44,516/- on account of term loan taken

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS was not deducted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is with regard to confirmation of disallowance of ₹.21, 44,516/-. The assessee has claimed interest paid to SBI at ₹.21,44,516/- on account of term loan taken

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

227 4. As mentioned at para 3 (vii) above, for denying the exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer had cited certain specific instances which, according to him, attracted the rigours of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. These are listed hereunder:- (i) An agreement for purchase of 22.34 acres of land at Brahmapuram, Katpadi

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

227 4. As mentioned at para 3 (vii) above, for denying the exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer had cited certain specific instances which, according to him, attracted the rigours of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. These are listed hereunder:- (i) An agreement for purchase of 22.34 acres of land at Brahmapuram, Katpadi