VNC STEEL DISTRIBUTORS,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1937/Chny/2024 & Stay Petition No: 40/Chny/2024 [In Ita No: 1937/Chny/2024)] िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vnc Steel Distributors, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, S. Vellalapatti, Circle -1(1), Karur – 639 004. Trichy. [Pan: Aadfv-9137-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 234C are not sustainable in law and merits to be set aside. 15.The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before, or at, the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged

TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1036/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Tamilnadu Industrial The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Limited, V. Income Tax, 19-A, Rukminilakshmipathy Road, Corporate Circle 3(1), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aaact-3409-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024

Section 43B, interest tax liability is allowable only in the year in which it was paid. 7. For the above grounds and any other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing / filing of written submission the appeal may kindly be entertained and relief claimed may kindly be allowed. 3. The assessee has also raised the additional grounds

SWAMINATHAN SUKUMAR,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

234C, and fee of Rs.10,000/- under section 234F,\ntotalling to Rs.4,64,062/-, on 25.05.2022 after adjusting TDS of\nRs.25

SHANMUGASUNDARAM VENKATACHALAPATHY,TIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

234C and 234D of the Act which is consequential. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, before commencement of during proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 2. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal which reads as under: 3 ITA2056/Chny/2024 Shri Shanmugaundaram Venkatachalapathy Vs ITO “12. The Learned

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

section 234C of the Act of Rs. 4,56,561/-. C. General That the Appellant craves to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated here-in- above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant company, ConferenceCall Service India

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

section 234C of the Act of Rs. 4,56,561/-. C. General That the Appellant craves to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated here-in- above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant company, ConferenceCall Service India

BINDAL AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.382/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Bindal Agencies Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No. 12/2, Venkatachalam Lane, Vs. Corporate Ward 1(2), 1St Floor, Rattan Bazaar, Chennai. Chennai 600 003. [Pan: Aaccb3892N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. & Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2018 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) 3, Chennai Dated 30.11.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. For That The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case To The Extent Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant & Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

234C.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return admitting a total income of ₹.24,84,440/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and against statuary notices issued, the assessee furnished the particulars called for. On verification of the details filed by the assessee as well as considering the submissions

TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HOSUR vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 234C as consequential in nature and not on the returned income. 2. This appeal was heard along with assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 on the same day. The appeals for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 have separately been disposed-off by us. It was admitted position that the facts as well as issues in this

PUDHUREDDIYUR RAJU KALAIMANI,HOSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, HOSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

TDS). Accordingly, the salary income was adjusted to Rs.45,45,519/- leading to total income of Rs.41,79,770/- after deductions under Chapter VI-A, and a demand of Rs.1,16,570/- was raised along with interest u/s.234B and C totalling to Rs.42,335/-. 5. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s.154 on 11.01.2021 claiming exemption u/s.10(10AA) for leave

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1) (I/C) , CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1199/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Credit Company Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1) I/C, Limited, Shriram House, No. 4, Aayakar Bhavan, Wanaparthy Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Block, 7Th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri R.Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 26.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment

234C of the ct on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/ 115JB of the Act and therefore, the aforesaid decision has no impact on the issue involved in this appeal. Similarly, in MAXOPP Investment Ltd., supra the Supreme Court has dealt with Section 14A of the Act and has not dealt with Section

SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1199/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Credit Company Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1) I/C, Limited, Shriram House, No. 4, Aayakar Bhavan, Wanaparthy Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Block, 7Th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri R.Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 26.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment

234C of the ct on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/ 115JB of the Act and therefore, the aforesaid decision has no impact on the issue involved in this appeal. Similarly, in MAXOPP Investment Ltd., supra the Supreme Court has dealt with Section 14A of the Act and has not dealt with Section

EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CORPORATE RANGE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

TDS was made. On appeal, by considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “7.3.1 I have considered the AO's observation in para 7.1 and the appellant’s submission in para. 7.2. The appellant is selling its liquor products to TASMAC, a public sector undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu and also

EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CORPORATE RANGE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

TDS was made. On appeal, by considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “7.3.1 I have considered the AO's observation in para 7.1 and the appellant’s submission in para. 7.2. The appellant is selling its liquor products to TASMAC, a public sector undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu and also

EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CORPORATE RANGE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

TDS was made. On appeal, by considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “7.3.1 I have considered the AO's observation in para 7.1 and the appellant’s submission in para. 7.2. The appellant is selling its liquor products to TASMAC, a public sector undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu and also

S R RAGHVIR,CHENNAI vs. TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri George Mathan

TDS for Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4 for assessment year 2014-15 on 01.03.2017. It was a submission that the due dates to file the returns for the above quarters were 15.07.2014, 15.10.2014, 15.01.2015 and 15.05.2015 respectively. Late fee had been levied on the assessee as per the provisions of the section 234E of the Act. It was a submission that

S R RAGHVIR,CHENNAI vs. TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri George Mathan

TDS for Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4 for assessment year 2014-15 on 01.03.2017. It was a submission that the due dates to file the returns for the above quarters were 15.07.2014, 15.10.2014, 15.01.2015 and 15.05.2015 respectively. Late fee had been levied on the assessee as per the provisions of the section 234E of the Act. It was a submission that

S R RAGHVIR,CHENNAI vs. TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri George Mathan

TDS for Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4 for assessment year 2014-15 on 01.03.2017. It was a submission that the due dates to file the returns for the above quarters were 15.07.2014, 15.10.2014, 15.01.2015 and 15.05.2015 respectively. Late fee had been levied on the assessee as per the provisions of the section 234E of the Act. It was a submission that

S R RAGHVIR,CHENNAI vs. TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri George Mathan

TDS for Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4 for assessment year 2014-15 on 01.03.2017. It was a submission that the due dates to file the returns for the above quarters were 15.07.2014, 15.10.2014, 15.01.2015 and 15.05.2015 respectively. Late fee had been levied on the assessee as per the provisions of the section 234E of the Act. It was a submission that