ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS on expenses to the extent of "13,74,438/--. Hence, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed

GUARDIAN INDIA OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

TDS return acknowledgement for 106 Form 240, 26Q, and 27Q for all the 4 Quarters (Annexure 2) Show Cause Notice ("SCN") under 118 section 263 of the Act dated January 11, 2024 issued by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax ("Ld. PCTT") 9 Response to SCN dated January 24, 121 2024, filed with the Ld. PCIT 5. After culmination

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. QUANTUM KNITS PRIVATE LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 201(IA) and has no bearing on the larger question whether tax is liable to be deducted or not. 6) The learned CIT(A) failed to consider the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd vs. ACIT, TDS Circle-Il cited in [2009] 185 Taxman 438

MAGICK WOODS EXPORTS P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

438 and is based on the decision of apex Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 0268 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that contribution made to provident fund before filing of the return could not be disallowed under sec.43B as it stood prior to the amendment w.e.f. 1st April

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP CIRCLE 8, CHENNAI

TDS on the payments made to the\nTPAs which was not made and therefore disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia).\n4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 115JB\nare not applicable to insurance companies without appreciating that the\nprovision of section 115JB do not allow any specific exemption for computation\nand taxation of book

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS on the payments made to the TPAs which was not made and therefore disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia). 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 115JB are not applicable to insurance companies without appreciating that the provision of section 115JB do not allow any specific exemption for computation and taxation of book

ORDAIN HEALTH CARE GLOBAL PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 211/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ordain Health Care The Dcit, Global Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle – 5(1), Khivraj Complex Ii, Fourth Floor Chennai - 34 No.480, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. Pan: Aabco5860A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha,Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2020

section 271(1 )(c) of the Act without appreciating that there was no failure on the part of the Appellant in complying with notices during the course of assessment proceedings or any attempt to conceal income / furnish inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Relief 6.1 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/Or withdraw the above ground of appeal

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

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

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

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

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

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

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

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

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

TDS 33. debited the assessment year 2010-2011, interest on service tax "24,436/- debited in assessment year 2011-2012 and VAT of "7,240/- ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 35 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. debited in assessment year 2012-2013, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer noting that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

438 ITR 1(SC). The assessee also prayed to delete the addition made under section Rule 8D(2)(iii). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) partly allowed the grounds raised by the assessee. 15. On being aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Though the ld. Counsel for the assessee

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

438 ITR 1(SC). The assessee also prayed to delete the addition made under section Rule 8D(2)(iii). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) partly allowed the grounds raised by the assessee. 15. On being aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Though the ld. Counsel for the assessee

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

section 234C of the Act of Rs. 4,56,561/-. C. General That the Appellant craves to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated here-in- above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant company, ConferenceCall Service India

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

section 234C of the Act of Rs. 4,56,561/-. C. General That the Appellant craves to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated here-in- above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant company, ConferenceCall Service India

THE RAMCO CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, MADURAI

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

Section 115JB is a complete code in itself. Failure to give credit for claim of additional TDS- Rs 14,76,039/- 18. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in omitting to give credit for additional TDS amounting to Rs 14,76,039 validly claimed by your Appellant vide revised return dated 29/03/2016. As is evident, the issues that fall

DCIT, MADURAI vs. THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD., RAJAPALAYAM

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

Section 115JB is a complete code in itself. Failure to give credit for claim of additional TDS- Rs 14,76,039/- 18. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in omitting to give credit for additional TDS amounting to Rs 14,76,039 validly claimed by your Appellant vide revised return dated 29/03/2016. As is evident, the issues that fall

THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. ,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , MADURAI

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

Section 115JB is a complete code in itself. Failure to give credit for claim of additional TDS- Rs 14,76,039/- 18. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in omitting to give credit for additional TDS amounting to Rs 14,76,039 validly claimed by your Appellant vide revised return dated 29/03/2016. As is evident, the issues that fall