BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

67 results for “TDS”+ Section 264clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi339Mumbai307Bangalore137Karnataka88Kolkata72Chennai67Jaipur38Hyderabad30Chandigarh20Ahmedabad18Cuttack14Lucknow14Indore12Pune12Cochin7SC6Raipur5Telangana4Guwahati4Surat4Nagpur3Amritsar3Jodhpur2Patna2Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)48Section 234E44Section 200A33Section 14832Section 14730Addition to Income28TDS27Section 14A24Disallowance19Reopening of Assessment

ITO TDS WARD, TIRUPUR vs. SHANTHI FORTUNE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., TIRUPUR

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

ITA 2557/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2385/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore. Palladam 641 664. [Pan: Aajcs4289D] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 88/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Tds Ward, No. 121, Private Limited, Sixty Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Palladam 641 664. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N Arjun Raj, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Dated 25.06.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153(3)Section 254

TDS under 5 I.T.A. Nos.2385 & 2557/Chny/18 & C.O. No.88/Chny/19 section 194A of the Act. Against the appeal filed by the Revenue, the assessee has also filed Cross Objection. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the ITAT in I.T.A. No. 2260/Mds/2012 & CO No. 30/Mds/2013

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

18
Deduction16
Section 6815

SHANTHI FORTUNE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPUR vs. ACIT TDS CIRCLE, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 2385/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2385/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore. Palladam 641 664. [Pan: Aajcs4289D] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 88/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Tds Ward, No. 121, Private Limited, Sixty Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Palladam 641 664. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N Arjun Raj, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Dated 25.06.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153(3)Section 254

TDS under 5 I.T.A. Nos.2385 & 2557/Chny/18 & C.O. No.88/Chny/19 section 194A of the Act. Against the appeal filed by the Revenue, the assessee has also filed Cross Objection. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the ITAT in I.T.A. No. 2260/Mds/2012 & CO No. 30/Mds/2013

SHRI. NR RAJASEKHARAN,SIVAKASI vs. ITO TDS WARD , MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 497/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.497/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(C)Section 234ESection 264

section 264 before ld. CIT(TDS),Coimbatore. Vide his order dated 09.02.2016, the ld. CIT(TDS) remitted back the issue

SPK CHINNAKANI NADAR & CO,SIVAKASI vs. ITO TDS WARD, MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1813/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1813/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(C)Section 234ESection 264

section 264 of the Act before ld. CIT(TDS), Coimbatore. Vide his order dated 09.02.2016, the ld. CIT(TDS) remitted

TEMENOS INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1955/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri C.J. Yeswanth Ram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Helan Ruby Jesintha (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 195Section 201(1)

Section 195. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that there is no dispute on the fact that the payment was made only for the purchase of software. 2. Drawing attention to grounds of appeal, Ld. AR submitted that the issue of requirement of deduction of tax at source (TDS) on royalty payment now stand covered

THE LOTUS SCORES AND SCREENS,SIVAKASI vs. ITO TDS WARD, MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1825/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Lotus Scores & Screens, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4, Shanmugam Road, Tds Ward, Sivakasi-626 123. Madurai. [Pan: Aaaft5403G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri G.N. Raghavendra Rao, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 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) 2, Madurai, Dated 09.04.2018 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 Late Fee Levied Under Section 234E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Raghavendra Rao, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(C)Section 234ESection 264

section 264 of the Act appeal before ld. CIT(TDS),Coimbatore. Vide his order dated 09.02.2016, the ld. CIT(TDS

VIJAY TRADERS,SIVAKASI vs. ITO TDS WARD, MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1826/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vijay Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 185, Mundagan Street, Tds Ward, Sivakasi-626 123. Madurai. [Pan: Aaafv7113R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri G.N. Raghavendra Rao, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 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) 2, Madurai, Dated 09.04.2018 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 Late Fee Levied Under Section 234E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Raghavendra Rao, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(C)Section 234ESection 264

section 264 of the Act appeal before ld. CIT(TDS),Coimbatore. Vide his order dated 09.02.2016, the ld. CIT(TDS

GUPTA PRINTERS,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT TDS CIRCLE, MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 500/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.500/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(C)Section 234ESection 264

section 264 of the Act appeal before ld. CIT(TDS),Coimbatore. Vide his order dated 09.02.2016, the ld. CIT(TDS

METTUR MUNICIPALITY,SALEM vs. ITO (TDS) , SALEM

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 758 & 759/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-24, 2024-25 Mettur Municipality Income Tax Officer (Tds) Salem. Municipality Office Road, Mettur Dam, Vs. Salem – 636 401. Tamil Nadu [Pan: Aaalm2764R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Bhupendran, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201

TDS obligation does not arise; o Thus, the payments, though made to TUFIDCO are ultimately made to the Government only and that such sums are to be utilized only as per directives of the Government and in line of policy guidelines of the Government of Tamil Nadu. However, the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai, without giving another opportunity of hearing

METTUR MUNICIPALITY,SALEM vs. ITO (TDS), SALEM

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 758 & 759/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-24, 2024-25 Mettur Municipality Income Tax Officer (Tds) Salem. Municipality Office Road, Mettur Dam, Vs. Salem – 636 401. Tamil Nadu [Pan: Aaalm2764R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Bhupendran, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201

TDS obligation does not arise; o Thus, the payments, though made to TUFIDCO are ultimately made to the Government only and that such sums are to be utilized only as per directives of the Government and in line of policy guidelines of the Government of Tamil Nadu. However, the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai, without giving another opportunity of hearing

DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , COIMBATORE vs. HABASIT LAKOKA PRIVATE LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1525/CHNY/2017[2015-16(27Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1525 & 1526/Chny/2017 Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dcit, International Taxation Circle, Coimbatore -Vs- M/S Habasit Lakoka Pvt. Ltd. [Tan: Cmbh03020D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. C.Yamuna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri C.S.K. Prabhu, CA
Section 139A(8)Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)

sections 4 & 5 in view of provisions of Sec.90(2). Based on this view, the ITAT held that where tax has been deducted on the strength of the provisions of DTAAs, provisions of Sec.206AA cannot be invoked to insist on tax deduction at 20%. The Bangalore Bench ITAT, in the case of Infosys BPO Ltd.,(supra), held an identical view

DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , COIMBATORE vs. HABASIT LAKOKA PRIVATE LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1526/CHNY/2017[2016-17(27Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1525 & 1526/Chny/2017 Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dcit, International Taxation Circle, Coimbatore -Vs- M/S Habasit Lakoka Pvt. Ltd. [Tan: Cmbh03020D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. C.Yamuna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri C.S.K. Prabhu, CA
Section 139A(8)Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)

sections 4 & 5 in view of provisions of Sec.90(2). Based on this view, the ITAT held that where tax has been deducted on the strength of the provisions of DTAAs, provisions of Sec.206AA cannot be invoked to insist on tax deduction at 20%. The Bangalore Bench ITAT, in the case of Infosys BPO Ltd.,(supra), held an identical view

G RADHAKRISHNAN,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT TDS CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 526/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. No. 526/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(C)Section 234ESection 264

264 dated 14.11.2014 before the Ld. CIT-(TDS), Coimbatore. The Ld. CIT-(TDS) relying on the judgement of the ITAT, A Bench, Chennai, remitted back the issue to the AO for passing order, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thereafter, the AO passed an order dated 27.12.2016 holding that levy of fee u/s. 234E is mandatory

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATIONLIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 177/CHNY/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD., NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 222/CHNY/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ITO, CUDDALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 782/CHNY/2005[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 529/CHNY/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 374/CHNY/2004[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 941/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

264 CTR 197] wherein it has been held that -.on-compete fee is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. Your goodself s observation that the facts arc different in the said case is not acceptable for the following reasons: • In Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. vs DCIT (supra), the assessee had entered into

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 940/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

264 CTR 197] wherein it has been held that -.on-compete fee is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. Your goodself s observation that the facts arc different in the said case is not acceptable for the following reasons: • In Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. vs DCIT (supra), the assessee had entered into