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

31) (Karnataka HC) 5. TATA Teleservices Limited Vs The ITa, TDS-l, Jaipur (ITA Nos. 309/JP/2012, 502, 503, 504, & 505/JP/2011)(ITAT Jaipur) 6. M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited vs ITO(TDS)-II (IT A No. 656/JP/2010), (Jaipur ITAT) 7. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited (in IT A No. 386/Ahd/11) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 8. Idea Cellular Limited vs ITO (ITA 356 to 359(JP/2012

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

31) (Karnataka HC) 5. TATA Teleservices Limited Vs The ITa, TDS-l, Jaipur (ITA Nos. 309/JP/2012, 502, 503, 504, & 505/JP/2011)(ITAT Jaipur) 6. M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited vs ITO(TDS)-II (IT A No. 656/JP/2010), (Jaipur ITAT) 7. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited (in IT A No. 386/Ahd/11) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 8. Idea Cellular Limited vs ITO (ITA 356 to 359(JP/2012

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

31) (Karnataka HC) 5. TATA Teleservices Limited Vs The ITa, TDS-l, Jaipur (ITA Nos. 309/JP/2012, 502, 503, 504, & 505/JP/2011)(ITAT Jaipur) 6. M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited vs ITO(TDS)-II (IT A No. 656/JP/2010), (Jaipur ITAT) 7. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited (in IT A No. 386/Ahd/11) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 8. Idea Cellular Limited vs ITO (ITA 356 to 359(JP/2012

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

31) (Karnataka HC) 5. TATA Teleservices Limited Vs The ITa, TDS-l, Jaipur (ITA Nos. 309/JP/2012, 502, 503, 504, & 505/JP/2011)(ITAT Jaipur) 6. M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited vs ITO(TDS)-II (IT A No. 656/JP/2010), (Jaipur ITAT) 7. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited (in IT A No. 386/Ahd/11) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 8. Idea Cellular Limited vs ITO (ITA 356 to 359(JP/2012

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

31) (Karnataka HC) 5. TATA Teleservices Limited Vs The ITa, TDS-l, Jaipur (ITA Nos. 309/JP/2012, 502, 503, 504, & 505/JP/2011)(ITAT Jaipur) 6. M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited vs ITO(TDS)-II (IT A No. 656/JP/2010), (Jaipur ITAT) 7. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited (in IT A No. 386/Ahd/11) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 8. Idea Cellular Limited vs ITO (ITA 356 to 359(JP/2012

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

31) (Karnataka HC) 5. TATA Teleservices Limited Vs The ITa, TDS-l, Jaipur (ITA Nos. 309/JP/2012, 502, 503, 504, & 505/JP/2011)(ITAT Jaipur) 6. M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited vs ITO(TDS)-II (IT A No. 656/JP/2010), (Jaipur ITAT) 7. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited (in IT A No. 386/Ahd/11) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 8. Idea Cellular Limited vs ITO (ITA 356 to 359(JP/2012

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

31) (Karnataka HC) 5. TATA Teleservices Limited Vs The ITa, TDS-l, Jaipur (ITA Nos. 309/JP/2012, 502, 503, 504, & 505/JP/2011)(ITAT Jaipur) 6. M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited vs ITO(TDS)-II (IT A No. 656/JP/2010), (Jaipur ITAT) 7. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited (in IT A No. 386/Ahd/11) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 8. Idea Cellular Limited vs ITO (ITA 356 to 359(JP/2012

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

section 154 for rectification of mistake, if Asst. Year in the order dated 24.12.2004. The TDS authority in his order, however, has mentioned that the order dated 24.12.2004 was confined only to payments emanating from Contract No.II and the reference to all other contracts namely Contract No.I, Contract No.III and Contact No.IV was only by way of preamble

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

section 154 for rectification of mistake, if Asst. Year in the order dated 24.12.2004. The TDS authority in his order, however, has mentioned that the order dated 24.12.2004 was confined only to payments emanating from Contract No.II and the reference to all other contracts namely Contract No.I, Contract No.III and Contact No.IV was only by way of preamble

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

section 154 for rectification of mistake, if Asst. Year in the order dated 24.12.2004. The TDS authority in his order, however, has mentioned that the order dated 24.12.2004 was confined only to payments emanating from Contract No.II and the reference to all other contracts namely Contract No.I, Contract No.III and Contact No.IV was only by way of preamble

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

section 154 for rectification of mistake, if Asst. Year in the order dated 24.12.2004. The TDS authority in his order, however, has mentioned that the order dated 24.12.2004 was confined only to payments emanating from Contract No.II and the reference to all other contracts namely Contract No.I, Contract No.III and Contact No.IV was only by way of preamble

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

section 154 for rectification of mistake, if Asst. Year in the order dated 24.12.2004. The TDS authority in his order, however, has mentioned that the order dated 24.12.2004 was confined only to payments emanating from Contract No.II and the reference to all other contracts namely Contract No.I, Contract No.III and Contact No.IV was only by way of preamble

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)

31,395/- inclusive of TDS of Rs. 17,00,989/-. (v) After filing the ROI, the TDS claim of Rs. 17,00,989/- was disallowed by intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 29.12.2017. (vi) The appellant then filed a revised ROI on 10.02.2018 again claiming the TDS refund 6.3.5 Now the issue before the undersigned is whether

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

31,395/- inclusive of TDS of Rs.\n17,00,989/-.\n(v) After filing the ROI, the TDS claim of Rs.17,00,989/- was\ndisallowed by intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 29.12.2017.\n(vi) The appellant then filed a revised ROI on 10.02.2018 again\nclaiming the TDS refund\n6.3.5 Now the issue before the undersigned is whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM vs. GOVINDA RAJULU SRINIVASAN, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, by the aforesaid action of the AO, the assessee is noted to have filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC wherein he raised legal issue challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to have made the additions/disallowances, by contending that even though the AO has reopened the assessment on certain issues

M/S. T vs. AUTO ASSIST (INDIA) LTD.,,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 3 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 199 of the Act read with rule 37BA of the Rules. Therefore, the Assessing Officer restricted the TDS claim pertaining to business receipts of the financial year 2015 – 2016 relevant to the Assessment Year 2016 – 2017 for an amount of Rs.38,75,279/- corresponding to the income offered to tax amounting to Rs.18,22,76,362/-. The Assessee himself

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

31 to Rs.125 crores as on 31-03-2019 and further credits from 01 2019 and further credits from 01-04-2019 to 31-05-2019 was Rs.10 crores. Also, there was a debit/repayment of 2019 was Rs.10 crores. Also, there was a debit/repayment of 2019 was Rs.10 crores. Also, there was a debit/repayment of Rs.1 crore. The AO further

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

31 to Rs.125 crores as on 31-03-2019 and further credits from 01 2019 and further credits from 01-04-2019 to 31-05-2019 was Rs.10 crores. Also, there was a debit/repayment of 2019 was Rs.10 crores. Also, there was a debit/repayment of 2019 was Rs.10 crores. Also, there was a debit/repayment of Rs.1 crore. The AO further