VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

TDS, the assessee is in appeal and the Assessing Officer considered the assessee is in default and accordingly he invoked the provision of sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

TDS, the assessee is in appeal and the Assessing Officer considered the assessee is in default and accordingly he invoked the provision of sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

TDS, the assessee is in appeal and the Assessing Officer considered the assessee is in default and accordingly he invoked the provision of sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

TDS, the assessee is in appeal and the Assessing Officer considered the assessee is in default and accordingly he invoked the provision of sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

TDS, the assessee is in appeal and the Assessing Officer considered the assessee is in default and accordingly he invoked the provision of sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

TDS, the assessee is in appeal and the Assessing Officer considered the assessee is in default and accordingly he invoked the provision of sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision

NEELARAJ VINOTH,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CC-2, , TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Neelaraj Vinoth, Income Tax, V. 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -2, Perambalur – 621 212, Trichy. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, Assistant Commissioner Of 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, V. Income Tax, Perambalur – 621 212, Central Circle -2, Tamilnadu. Trichy. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS in his various ROls filed for this year, of which the original ROI and the 1st revised ROI were filed prior to the search. This being the case, the seized letter did not reveal anything new to the Department and thus the same can never be touted as an incriminating material bringing to light some undisclosed income or undisclosed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. NEELARAJ VINOTH, PERAMBALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS relating to the said transaction, the\nundersigned is of the considered view that the seized material relied\nupon by the Assessing Officer (loose sheet Sl. No. 2) does not\npartake the character of \"incriminating material to invoke the\nprovisions of section 153C of the Act. Consequently the satisfaction\nrecorded by the AO by relying upon such seized material

ACIT VILLUUPRAM CIRCLE, VILLUUPRAM vs. S.RADAKRISHNAN, TINDIVANAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3049/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Acit, Shri S. Radakrishnan, Villupuram Circle, V. 33/3, A1 Mallam Road, Villupuram – 605 602. Indira Nagar, Tindivanam – 604 202. Panl Aidpr 4858G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Bhoopathy, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Philip George, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee replied to the AO vide letter dated 20.03.2015 that he has obtained Form No.15I from the transport contractors and the same are filed with the CIT, Puducherry. The AO asked the assessee to produce Form No.15I & 15J in support of his claim but according to AO, the assessee did not file

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

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

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

268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT

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

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

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

268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT

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

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

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

268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT

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

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

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

268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT

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

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

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

268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT

TH 130 M/S BHARATHIYAR PWCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.255/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Th 130 M/S Bharathiyar Pwcs Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.86A, East Colony, Komarapalayam, V. Tds Ward, Namakkal Dt. – 638 183. Salem. Pan : Aaaab 7285 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS under Section 194C of the Act, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer levied penalty of `48,748/- and the same was rightly confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee failed to deduct

DCIT LTU-1 , CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

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 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai-Trib), wherein the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal has held that, “depreciation is not allowable on non-compete fee paid as consideration to other party

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU 1 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

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 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai-Trib), wherein the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal has held that, “depreciation is not allowable on non-compete fee paid as consideration to other party

DCIT LTPU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD, CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

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 32(1)(ii) and depreciation claimed on same was to be disallowed.” Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision in the case of Arkema Peroxides India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] taxmann.com 4 (Chennai-Trib), wherein the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal has held that, “depreciation is not allowable on non-compete fee paid as consideration to other party