PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

251 of the Act were not confined to the matter, which had been considered by the Income Tax Officer, as the first appellate authority is vested with all the wide powers of the assessing officer may have while making the assessment, but the issue whether these wide powers also include the power to discover a new source of income

ESPN DIGITAL MEDIA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

TDS returns noted that as to why the payment made by ESPN India should be considered as “Royalty” and hence liable for withholding tax. The AO noted that the word “use” in relation to provision of clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) has to be understood in a broad sense for availing the benefit

ESPN DIGITAL MEDIA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

TDS returns noted that as to why the payment made by ESPN India should be considered as “Royalty” and hence liable for withholding tax. The AO noted that the word “use” in relation to provision of clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) has to be understood in a broad sense for availing the benefit

ESPN DIGITAL MEDIA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

TDS returns noted that as to why the payment made by ESPN India should be considered as “Royalty” and hence liable for withholding tax. The AO noted that the word “use” in relation to provision of clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) has to be understood in a broad sense for availing the benefit

ESPN DIGITAL MEDIA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

TDS returns noted that as to why the payment made by ESPN India should be considered as “Royalty” and hence liable for withholding tax. The AO noted that the word “use” in relation to provision of clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) has to be understood in a broad sense for availing the benefit

SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

251(1)(a) of the Act, the “power to set aside” are “ examining the issue afresh” has been omitted with effect from 01.06.2001 as per Finance Act 2001. 3.2) The order of the Hon’ble ITAT on the similar issue in the case of M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Limited (2013-TOIL-796-- ITAT-MAD, dt. 17.07.2013) has not been accepted

SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

251(1)(a) of the Act, the “power to set aside” are “ examining the issue afresh” has been omitted with effect from 01.06.2001 as per Finance Act 2001. 3.2) The order of the Hon’ble ITAT on the similar issue in the case of M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Limited (2013-TOIL-796-- ITAT-MAD, dt. 17.07.2013) has not been accepted

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

251(1)(a) of the Act, the “power to set aside” are “ examining the issue afresh” has been omitted with effect from 01.06.2001 as per Finance Act 2001. 3.2) The order of the Hon’ble ITAT on the similar issue in the case of M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Limited (2013-TOIL-796-- ITAT-MAD, dt. 17.07.2013) has not been accepted

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

251(1)(a) of the Act, the “power to set aside” are “ examining the issue afresh” has been omitted with effect from 01.06.2001 as per Finance Act 2001. 3.2) The order of the Hon’ble ITAT on the similar issue in the case of M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Limited (2013-TOIL-796-- ITAT-MAD, dt. 17.07.2013) has not been accepted

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

sections 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) of the Income Tax Act”. 9.3 Further, it is submitted that no such information was ever asked for in the course of appellate proceedings. He submitted that the claim of bad debts needs to be allowed in view of the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

sections 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) of the Income Tax Act”. 9.3 Further, it is submitted that no such information was ever asked for in the course of appellate proceedings. He submitted that the claim of bad debts needs to be allowed in view of the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited

COOPER STANDARD AUTOMATIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENGALPUT vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

TDS is not applicable. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of ITAT, Chennai, in the case of Cairn Energy Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2010) 2 ITR 38. 11.1 Similarly, in the case of Testing and Development Charges, the Ld.AR argued that the assessee is using the output of technology without human intervention. For holding the payment as Fee for Technical

M/S. TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-3

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

TDS\nvi.\nExpenses incurred for earning Exempt income\nDeduction on account of donation for Scientific Research\nThe issued statutory notices to the assessee and assessee filed its\nreply from time to time and the AO completed the assessment and\npassed an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act\nvide order dated 05.04.2021 by accepting the returned

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

TDS)-1 (94 ITD 91 and Hon’ble Special Bench, ITAT in the case of Motorolo Inx. vs. DCIT reported in 95 ITD 269. 12.1 We heard the rival parties and perused the material placed before us. There is no dispute in fact that the assessee has purchased the software and the assessing officer has admitted this fact

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

TDS)-1 (94 ITD 91 and Hon’ble Special Bench, ITAT in the case of Motorolo Inx. vs. DCIT reported in 95 ITD 269. 12.1 We heard the rival parties and perused the material placed before us. There is no dispute in fact that the assessee has purchased the software and the assessing officer has admitted this fact

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

TDS)-1 (94 ITD 91 and Hon’ble Special Bench, ITAT in the case of Motorolo Inx. vs. DCIT reported in 95 ITD 269. 12.1 We heard the rival parties and perused the material placed before us. There is no dispute in fact that the assessee has purchased the software and the assessing officer has admitted this fact

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

TDS)-1 (94 ITD 91 and Hon’ble Special Bench, ITAT in the case of Motorolo Inx. vs. DCIT reported in 95 ITD 269. 12.1 We heard the rival parties and perused the material placed before us. There is no dispute in fact that the assessee has purchased the software and the assessing officer has admitted this fact

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TURBO ENERGY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

TDS)-1 (94 ITD 91 and Hon’ble Special Bench, ITAT in the case of Motorolo Inx. vs. DCIT reported in 95 ITD 269. 12.1 We heard the rival parties and perused the material placed before us. There is no dispute in fact that the assessee has purchased the software and the assessing officer has admitted this fact

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

TDS)-1 (94 ITD 91 and Hon’ble Special Bench, ITAT in the case of Motorolo Inx. vs. DCIT reported in 95 ITD 269. 12.1 We heard the rival parties and perused the material placed before us. There is no dispute in fact that the assessee has purchased the software and the assessing officer has admitted this fact