DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section

ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(1), CHENNAI vs. MALAR ENERGY & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Malar Energy & Infrastructure Corporate Ward 4(1), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., No. 57, Pantheon Road, Chennai 600 034. Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aagcm5674F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 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) 8, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition/Disallowance Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] With Respect To The Tds Default Under Section 194C & 194H Of The Act To ₹.7,29,898/- Instead Of ₹.3,03,28,445/- By Considering Fresh Evidence In Violation Of Rule 46A Of The It Rules.

34,473/- with a TDS of ₹.33,447/- under section 194H of the Act. Thus, the difference of commission payments

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

section 271C of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee has claimed credit for TDS made

KRISHNASWAMY YOGANANDAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 194H of Income Tax Act,1961 or not? B) Whether the assesee is correct in deducting TDS @10% on the sum of Rs.1,13,34

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. The argument of the assessee was not acceptable . M/s. Religare Finvest Ltd. is not a Public Financial Institution or a Banking Concern, so as to get excluded from the purview of Section 194A. The assessee has neither submitted a copy of the Non deduction Certificate, if any, in respect of the interest payment made. Under the circumstances. I have

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at : INR 201,663 and Transfer Pricing adjustments of at INR 1,48,48,492 & INR 40,96,82,652 and penalty proceedings under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at : INR 201,663 and Transfer Pricing adjustments of at INR 1,48,48,492 & INR 40,96,82,652 and penalty proceedings under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at : INR 201,663 and Transfer Pricing adjustments of at INR 1,48,48,492 & INR 40,96,82,652 and penalty proceedings under section

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

34,74,475 Disallowance of consulting fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 13,70,90,436 Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at : INR 201,663 and Transfer Pricing adjustments of at INR 1,48,48,492 & INR 40,96,82,652 and penalty proceedings under section

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

34. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 183/Chny/2021- AY: 2016-17 35. Ground No. 1, 8 & 9 raised by the assessee are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 36. Ground Nos. 2 to 6 raised by the assessee as to whether the ld. PCIT is justified in invoking jurisdiction under section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SHREE BALAJI COMMUNICATIONS, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 36/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Shree Balaji Communications, Income Tax, Vs. No. 18/126, Dhan Enclave, Non-Corporate Circle 20, Bhajani Kovil St., Choolaimedu, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 094. [Pan:Abifs0605A]] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. M.M. Bhusari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Senthil Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2016 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) Iv, Chennai, Dated 16.10.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. In This Appeal, The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is With Regard To Deletion Of Addition Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Towards

34. Chennai 600 094. [PAN:ABIFS0605A]] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Dr. M.M. Bhusari, CIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M.P. Senthil Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of hearing : 26.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

34)\n₹.\n22,52,211/-\n₹.\n1,76,12,403/-\n₹.\n4,40,105/-\n₹.\n388,58,24,247/-\n24.\nOn perusal of the above, it is noted that the Tribunal observed that\nthe Assessing Officer granted exemption in respect of all above except on\nLTCG on transfer of shares under section 10(38) of the Act to an extent

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

34)\n₹.\n4,40,105/-\n₹.\n388,58,24,247/-\n24.\nOn perusal of the above, it is noted that the Tribunal observed that\nthe Assessing Officer granted exemption in respect of all above except on\nLTCG on transfer of shares under section 10(38) of the Act to an extent of\nRs.588,85,02,720/-. Therefore, it is clear

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

34)\n₹.\n4,40,105/-\n₹.\n388,58,24,247/-\n24.\nOn perusal of the above, it is noted that the Tribunal observed that\nthe Assessing Officer granted exemption in respect of all above except on\nLTCG on transfer of shares under section 10(38) of the Act to an extent of\nRs.588,85,02,720/-. Therefore, it is clear

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

34)\n588,85,02,720/-\n₹.\n22,52,211/-\n₹.\n1,76,12,403/-\n₹.\n4,40,105/-\n₹.\n388,58,24,247/-\n24. On perusal of the above, it is noted that the Tribunal observed that\nthe Assessing Officer granted exemption in respect of all above except on\nLTCG on transfer of shares under section