DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PETROFAC ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for both

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.656 & 657/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs M/S. Petrofac Engineering The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Pvt.Ltd. 7Th Floor, Block 9A Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai. Dlf Infocity Sez 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Nandambakkam Post Manapakkam, Chennai-600089. Pan: Aaecp 1211H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS, along with interest under section 201(IA). The appeal before the Commissioner (CIT) was dismissed. However, the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) succeeded in which the ITAT followed its previous order dated 18-2-2005, passed in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. ITO [20051 94 lTD 91 (Bang.). • The High Court of Karnataka, on an examination

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), INTERNTIONAL TAXATION, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PETROFAC ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD,,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for both

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.656 & 657/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs M/S. Petrofac Engineering The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Pvt.Ltd. 7Th Floor, Block 9A Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai. Dlf Infocity Sez 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Nandambakkam Post Manapakkam, Chennai-600089. Pan: Aaecp 1211H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS, along with interest under section 201(IA). The appeal before the Commissioner (CIT) was dismissed. However, the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) succeeded in which the ITAT followed its previous order dated 18-2-2005, passed in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. ITO [20051 94 lTD 91 (Bang.). • The High Court of Karnataka, on an examination

JCIT, COIMBATORE vs. CHROMA PRINT INDIA PVT . LTD., COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.2083/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Chroma Print India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Tds Range, Vs. P.B. No. 5316, 53, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore. G.N. Mills Post, Mtp Road, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccc6021A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Veni Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal: “1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That No Penalty Is Leviable On The Non Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Labour Charges Worth

30,000/- on 31.03.2012 without deducting TDS. The payment made to the directors, by whatever the name called, has to be treated as salary 8 I.T.A. No.2083/M/16 and TDS should have been deducted as provided under section

KRISHNAMURTHY SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3396/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Krishnamurthy Srinivasan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 1C, Vanagaram Road, Athipet, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 058. Chennai. [Pan:Bbkps4428J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Mohamed Mustafa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 17.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of ₹.75,66,470/- Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

TDS component alone constituted Rs. 1,30,470.80 crores. The Division Bench observed that introduction of Section 40(a)(ia) had achieved

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ESKAY DESIGNS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 247/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Eskay Designs, No. 25, 1St Street, Cenotaph Road, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Vs. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaafe1480C] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 31.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The First Issue Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Rental Income Received By The Assessee On Sub-Letting Of Its Leased Out Properties Under The Head “Income From House Property” & The Second Issue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Allow The Expenses If They Are Paid As On 2

TDS component alone constituted Rs. 1,30,470.80 crores. The Division Bench observed that introduction of Section 40(a)(ia) had achieved

M/S. BINNY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, TDS,CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the\norder of Ld

TDS survey was conducted upon its\npremise on 26.10.2021. During the course of the survey it was noted\nthat the assessee had entered into a transaction for purchase of land\nadmeasuring about 7.07 acres of land during financial year with one M/s.\nMohan Breweries and distilleries Limited(MBDL), a sister concern of the\nassessee. For the purpose the assessee

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT TDS, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1465/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 State Bank Of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Industrial Finance Branch, Income Tax, 103, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Tds Circle 3(1), [Tan:Ches02510E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Madan Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(1)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 17 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Passed Under Section 201/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

30% of LFC amount paid during the year. Further, the assessee has not provided the date of payment of LFC made to its employee. Therefore, the date will be taken as the first date of FY 2015-16. Accordingly, the TDS default is computed as below: Sr. Name of the LFC Date of TDS to be Delay in Interest

M/S. BINNY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,TDS, CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the\norder of Ld

TDS survey was conducted upon its\npremise on 26.10.2021.\nDuring the course of the survey it was noted\nthat the assessee had entered into a transaction for purchase of land\nadmeasuring about 7.07 acres of land during financial year with one M/s.\nMohan Breweries and distilleries Limited(MBDL), a sister concern of the\nassessee. For the purpose the assessee

M.V.A.SEETHARAMA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.795/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mr. M.V.A. Seetharama Raju, Tax, Flat No.32, Rishikesh Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-2, 38, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. Pan: Agopr 1931M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS, then the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked. 7) With a view to liberalize provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, Finance Act 2012 brought amendment with effect from 01.042013 as under: • The following second proviso shall be inserted in sub-clause (ia) of clause (a) of Section

ACIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STUDIO GREEN,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2427/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 & C.O. No. 99/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No. 2427/Chny/2019] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Studio Green, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Vs. Old No. 13, New No. 6, Ii Floor, Investigation Wing, Room No. 311, 6, Thanikachalam Road, No. 46, Mg Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Absfs6433Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S. Bharath, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri V. Vivek Rajan, C.A. : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.08.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 26.06.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Involved In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Relating To Whether The Second Proviso Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Applies Retrospectively Or Only Prospective From The Date Of 2

TDS deduction. No details were filed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the entire expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, on verification of the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has paid ₹.1,30

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed\nand the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

30%, which, clearly demonstrate that the\nassessee is liable to deduct TDS. The Assessing Officer and the Id.\nCIT(A) correctly held that the “assessee is in default” and imposed\ninterest under section

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed\nand the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

30%, which, clearly demonstrate that the\nassessee is liable to deduct TDS. The Assessing Officer and the Id.\nCIT(A) correctly held that the “assessee is in default” and imposed\ninterest under section

RANE ENGINE VALVE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

TDS out of the remittances made to her. Therefore, the disallowance made by ITA Nos.1497, 1498/Chny/2017, 1477 & 2815/CHNY/2018 & 885/CHNY/2020 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act is not warranted and the same is deleted. 4.6 Since the facts are identical in other four assessment years i.e., 2012-13 to 2015-16 also, taking a consistent view

RANE ENGINE VALVE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

TDS out of the remittances made to her. Therefore, the disallowance made by ITA Nos.1497, 1498/Chny/2017, 1477 & 2815/CHNY/2018 & 885/CHNY/2020 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act is not warranted and the same is deleted. 4.6 Since the facts are identical in other four assessment years i.e., 2012-13 to 2015-16 also, taking a consistent view

RANE ENGINE VALVES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

TDS out of the remittances made to her. Therefore, the disallowance made by ITA Nos.1497, 1498/Chny/2017, 1477 & 2815/CHNY/2018 & 885/CHNY/2020 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act is not warranted and the same is deleted. 4.6 Since the facts are identical in other four assessment years i.e., 2012-13 to 2015-16 also, taking a consistent view

RANE ENGINE VALVES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

TDS out of the remittances made to her. Therefore, the disallowance made by ITA Nos.1497, 1498/Chny/2017, 1477 & 2815/CHNY/2018 & 885/CHNY/2020 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act is not warranted and the same is deleted. 4.6 Since the facts are identical in other four assessment years i.e., 2012-13 to 2015-16 also, taking a consistent view

RANE ENGINE VALVE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

TDS out of the remittances made to her. Therefore, the disallowance made by ITA Nos.1497, 1498/Chny/2017, 1477 & 2815/CHNY/2018 & 885/CHNY/2020 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act is not warranted and the same is deleted. 4.6 Since the facts are identical in other four assessment years i.e., 2012-13 to 2015-16 also, taking a consistent view

RAMANIYAM REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I, LTU,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

30% of certain expenses totaling Rs. 47,87,748/- amounting to Rs. 14,36,324/-, under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for alleged non-deduction of TDS

M/S.MAHOGANY LOGISTICS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

TDS. The Assessing Officer completed the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.08.2021 by disallowing ₹.9,26,75,342/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being 30