M.ARUNACHALAM AND COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S M. Arunachalam & Company, The Joint / Assistant No.117/79, Lloyds Road, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Business Range Viii, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaafm 6851 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Shri J. Chandrasekaran, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee made payment to sub- contractors in the course of engineering contract. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not made any TDS, therefore, the total payment of `39,44,719/- was disallowed. According to the 7 I.T.A. Nos.1352

M.ARUNACHALAM AND COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S M. Arunachalam & Company, The Joint / Assistant No.117/79, Lloyds Road, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Business Range Viii, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaafm 6851 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Shri J. Chandrasekaran, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee made payment to sub- contractors in the course of engineering contract. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not made any TDS, therefore, the total payment of `39,44,719/- was disallowed. According to the 7 I.T.A. Nos.1352

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

285 to 287 of the paper-book. The business model continued in the years under consideration also. Inspite of that the TPO determined the Arm's Length Price in respect of the purchase of finished goods from associate enterprise by adopting Transaction Net Margin Method. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee incurred substantial sales and distribution cost

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PARRYWARE ROCA PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

285 to 287 of the paper-book. The business model continued in the years under consideration also. Inspite of that the TPO determined the Arm's Length Price in respect of the purchase of finished goods from associate enterprise by adopting Transaction Net Margin Method. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee incurred substantial sales and distribution cost

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS has to be deducted or not when the commission payment made to the overseas or not when the commission payment made to the overseas or not when the commission payment made to the overseas agents, the isuse is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the isuse is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the isuse

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

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

285 12. 09.02.2022 Reply to the Notice under Section 142(1) of the 287 Act dated 20.01.2022 13. - Annual report for Assessment Year: 2020 – 21 293 14. - Details of ICDS compliance 456 15. - Details of creditors 461 16. - Details of borrowings 466 17. - Details of TDS

WALLACE SPORTS AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

TDS on the payment of interest to various parties. Hence, the AO have a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the ambit of section 147 of the Act and the case was re-opened. A notice u/s.148 was issued to the assessee on 02.03.2016. There was no whisper that the AO came to know

HANSA VISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3443/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Hansa Vision India P. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 19, Wheatcroft Road, Vs. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Corporate Circle 2(2), [Pan:Aabct3770E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 29.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The First Ground & Ground No. 12 Raised In The Appeal Are General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

285/- and disallowed. Admittedly, the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the assessment year under consideration. The contention of the assessee is that when there is no exempt income earned, there is no question of expenditure required to be disallowed in view of the decision in the case of Redington India Ltd. v. ACIT (supra). We have perused

ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 5 (4),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. RAJKISHORE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result , the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2229/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer , Vs M/S. Rajkishore Developers Corporate Ward-5(4), Pvt.Ltd., 7/486, 17Th Street, 4Th Sector, Chennai. K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078. Pan : Aadcr 6450R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS on the interest paid to M/s.Capital First Limited. Before me, the authorized representative has only argued that section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been amended vide Finance Act, 2014, effective from AY 2015-16, to restrict the amount of disallowance for non-deduction of tax to 30 percent of the expenditure claimed. On perusal

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

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

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Section 43B 153A bearing funds 6. Donations disallowance disallowed assessee 10,91,095 30,00,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Section 43B 153A bearing funds 6. Donations disallowance disallowed assessee 10,91,095 30,00,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

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

Section 43B 153A bearing funds 6. Donations disallowance disallowed assessee 10,91,095 30,00,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

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

Section 43B 153A bearing funds 6. Donations disallowance disallowed assessee 10,91,095 30,00,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17

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

TDS on sum paid to AE, on the ground that the payment made to AE is in the nature of ‘fee for :-8-: ITA. No: 584/Chny/2015 & 529Chny/2017 technical services’ as provided in Explanation (2) to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. A similar direction has been given for assessment year 2012-13, where the DRP has upheld TP adjustment

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

TDS on sum paid to AE, on the ground that the payment made to AE is in the nature of ‘fee for :-8-: ITA. No: 584/Chny/2015 & 529Chny/2017 technical services’ as provided in Explanation (2) to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. A similar direction has been given for assessment year 2012-13, where the DRP has upheld TP adjustment

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

TDS". If one reads the observation of the Supreme Court, the words "such sum" clearly indicate that the observation refers to a case of composite payment where the payer has a doubt regarding the inclusion of an amount in such payment which is exigible to tax in India. In our view, the above observations of this Court in Transmission Corpn