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

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

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:

234D of the Act amounting to INR 2,07,030. Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may be thus granted. The Appellant may kindly be given an opportunity of being heard as per the principles of natural justice. All of the above grounds

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2012-13

234D of the Act on the excess amount refunded to the assessee while processing a return under Section 143(1) of the Act. Even though it is an interest levied on the amount refunded to the assessee, in fact, it is an interest for delayed payment of tax. In other words, the amount refunded to the assessee while processing return

SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2012-13

234D of the Act on the excess amount refunded to the assessee while processing a return under Section 143(1) of the Act. Even though it is an interest levied on the amount refunded to the assessee, in fact, it is an interest for delayed payment of tax. In other words, the amount refunded to the assessee while processing return

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SUNDARAM FASTERNERS LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

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

TDS and TCS claimed in the Return of income. 13. We are of the opinion that whether the claim for tax credit was correctly made by the assessee is the issue need to be examined afresh by the ld. Assessing Officer. If the assessee is able to show evidence for TDS/TCS of "28,81,980/-, the ld. Assessing Officer

SUNDRAM FASTENERS LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ADDL.CIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

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

TDS and TCS claimed in the Return of income. 13. We are of the opinion that whether the claim for tax credit was correctly made by the assessee is the issue need to be examined afresh by the ld. Assessing Officer. If the assessee is able to show evidence for TDS/TCS of "28,81,980/-, the ld. Assessing Officer

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

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

TDS and TCS claimed in the Return of income. 13. We are of the opinion that whether the claim for tax credit was correctly made by the assessee is the issue need to be examined afresh by the ld. Assessing Officer. If the assessee is able to show evidence for TDS/TCS of "28,81,980/-, the ld. Assessing Officer

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

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

TDS and TCS claimed in the Return of income. 13. We are of the opinion that whether the claim for tax credit was correctly made by the assessee is the issue need to be examined afresh by the ld. Assessing Officer. If the assessee is able to show evidence for TDS/TCS of "28,81,980/-, the ld. Assessing Officer

M/S VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS SINGAPORE PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY MCI WORLDCOM ASIA PVT. LTD.),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

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

section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Income Tax Act, as the case may be, we remand this issue alone to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for its consideration on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the above Tax Case (Appeals) are disposed of. No Cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed’’. ITA Nos1311/06, 164/07, :- 3 -: 1507/10 & 1722/11

M/S VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS SINGAPORE PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY MCI WORLDCOM ASIA PVT. LTD.),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

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

section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Income Tax Act, as the case may be, we remand this issue alone to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for its consideration on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the above Tax Case (Appeals) are disposed of. No Cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed’’. ITA Nos1311/06, 164/07, :- 3 -: 1507/10 & 1722/11

M/S VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

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

section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Income Tax Act, as the case may be, we remand this issue alone to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for its consideration on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the above Tax Case (Appeals) are disposed of. No Cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed’’. ITA Nos1311/06, 164/07, :- 3 -: 1507/10 & 1722/11

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS SINGAPORE PTE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

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

section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Income Tax Act, as the case may be, we remand this issue alone to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for its consideration on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the above Tax Case (Appeals) are disposed of. No Cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed’’. ITA Nos1311/06, 164/07, :- 3 -: 1507/10 & 1722/11

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

TDS without any further delay. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 19. The next ground is related to levy of interest u/s 234D to the extent of 6,10,636. 20. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the applicability of interest u/s 234D and levy correct amount of interest. 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

TDS without any further delay. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 19. The next ground is related to levy of interest u/s 234D to the extent of 6,10,636. 20. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the applicability of interest u/s 234D and levy correct amount of interest. 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee