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.

TDS default under section 194C and 194H of the Act to ₹.7,29,898/- instead of ₹.3,03,28,445/- by considering fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A

GRAND ARK LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the\nstatistical purposes

46A" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on transport hire charges was justified

ACIT VILLUUPRAM CIRCLE, VILLUUPRAM vs. S.RADAKRISHNAN, TINDIVANAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3049/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Acit, Shri S. Radakrishnan, Villupuram Circle, V. 33/3, A1 Mallam Road, Villupuram – 605 602. Indira Nagar, Tindivanam – 604 202. Panl Aidpr 4858G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Bhoopathy, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Philip George, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022

TDS u/s.194C of the Act, thereby violated the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee replied to the AO vide letter dated 20.03.2015 that he has obtained Form No.15I from the transport contractors and the same are filed with the CIT, Puducherry. The AO asked the assessee to produce Form No.15I & 15J in support

SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1251/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle-6(1) Chennai-600 004. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1298/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Shriram City Union Finance Tax, Ltd. Corporate Circle-6(1) Mookambika Complex, Chennai-34. No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 194H of the Act, and thus, disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS cannot be made. The revenue has failed to bring on record any evidence to counter findings of fact recorded by the learned CIT(A), except stating that the learned CIT(A) has accepted additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S, SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1251/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle-6(1) Chennai-600 004. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1298/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Shriram City Union Finance Tax, Ltd. Corporate Circle-6(1) Mookambika Complex, Chennai-34. No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 194H of the Act, and thus, disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS cannot be made. The revenue has failed to bring on record any evidence to counter findings of fact recorded by the learned CIT(A), except stating that the learned CIT(A) has accepted additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A

ITO WARD 1, NAMAKKAL vs. EVER GREEN TRAILOR SERVICES, NAMAKKAL

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1871/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Ever Green Trailor Services, Ward 1, Namakkal. No. 6/336-A6,, Paramathi Road, Opposite To Ntloa Petrol Pump, Namakkal 637 001. [Pan:Aacfe5113G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Vivekanandan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate 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 Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Dated 20.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1) The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To The Facts, Law. 2) The Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider The Assessing Officer'S Observation That All The Bearer Cheques Issued By The Assessee

TDS and in view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of ₹.1,59,69,533/- [u/s 194C(1) – ₹.90,05,333/- (+) u/s. 194C(7) – ₹.69,64,200/- and brought to tax. On appeal, after considering the submissions and details furnished by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) directed

DCIT, OOTY vs. N.PURUSHOTHAMAN, COIMBATORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.76/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.76/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) summarized arguments of the Assessing Officer and the assessee in para 4 of the appellate order and relevant portion reads as under:- a) The books were supported by vouchers. The Assessing Officer has stated that the supporting evidence is not reliable as they are self made vouchers

N.PURUSHOTHAMAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.76/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.76/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) summarized arguments of the Assessing Officer and the assessee in para 4 of the appellate order and relevant portion reads as under:- a) The books were supported by vouchers. The Assessing Officer has stated that the supporting evidence is not reliable as they are self made vouchers

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ACQUEON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

TDS amount. The assessee is directed to provide a reconciliation statement.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["143(3)", "46A"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) had achieved the objective of augmenting the TDS to a substantial extent. The Division Bench also observed that when the provisions and procedures relating to TDS are scrupulously applied, it also ensured the identification of the payees thereby confirming the network of assessees and that once the assessees are identified it would enable the tax collection

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE 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)

Section 40(a)(ia) had achieved the objective of augmenting the TDS to a substantial extent. The Division Bench also observed that when the provisions and procedures relating to TDS are scrupulously applied, it also ensured the identification of the payees thereby confirming the network of assessees and that once the assessees are identified it would enable the tax collection

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE 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)

Section 40(a)(ia) had achieved the objective of augmenting the TDS to a substantial extent. The Division Bench also observed that when the provisions and procedures relating to TDS are scrupulously applied, it also ensured the identification of the payees thereby confirming the network of assessees and that once the assessees are identified it would enable the tax collection

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. K7 COMPUTING PVT. LTD., 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. 1429/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K7 Computing Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No. 144/7, Rayala Techno Park, Corporate Circle 4(2) Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabck1942M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

TDS as per section 195(1). 2.3 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that as per the agreement dated 28.06.2006 with CSL, the OEM shall pay Commtouch 15% (10% for Anti Spam - SDK services and 5% for the VOD-SDK services) from the OEM Net generated by bundled products or any individual products sold by OEM in worldwide markets which

DCIT, PONDICHERRY vs. INTEGRA SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD., PONDICHERRY

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

46A, since the details submitted before the CIT(A) for the amounts paid within threshold limits laid down by Section 194C which were not available in the records. 5. For the above and for any other reasons that may be adduced at the time of hearing the order of the CIT(A) may be cancelled and that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

TDS thereupon. The Ld. AO observed that in AY-2014-15 also assessee had shown an amount of Rs.10,78,13,729/- out of debit entry of Rs.21,86,23,998/-. Thus, the Ld. Counsel argued that the Ld. AO has drawn a wrong conclusion that the assessee is claiming twice deduction in respect of Rs.10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

TDS thereupon. The Ld. AO observed that in AY-2014-15 also assessee had shown an amount of Rs.10,78,13,729/- out of debit entry of Rs.21,86,23,998/-. Thus, the Ld. Counsel argued that the Ld. AO has drawn a wrong conclusion that the assessee is claiming twice deduction in respect of Rs.10

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

Section 194C(6), no TDS obligation arises subject to statutory conditions. The Assessee has discharged its primary onus by placing complete documentary evidence on record. It is further submitted that for AY 2014-15, the same AO completed the assessment without making any comparable disallowance. This reinforces the assessee’s submission that the impugned assessment

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

Section 194C(6), no TDS obligation arises subject to statutory conditions. The Assessee has discharged its primary onus by placing complete documentary evidence on record. It is further submitted that for AY 2014-15, the same AO completed the assessment without making any comparable disallowance. This reinforces the assessee’s submission that the impugned assessment