SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

TDS by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) if the Act. In view of the second proviso to this Section, we are in full agreement with the arguments of the :: 8 :: I.T.A Nos.:1654 to 1658/CHNY/2019 learned Counsel for the Assessee, as well as the learned Senior Departmental Representative that, in case the recipients have disclosed the remunerations

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

TDS by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) if the Act. In view of the second proviso to this Section, we are in full agreement with the arguments of the :: 8 :: I.T.A Nos.:1654 to 1658/CHNY/2019 learned Counsel for the Assessee, as well as the learned Senior Departmental Representative that, in case the recipients have disclosed the remunerations

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

TDS by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) if the Act. In view of the second proviso to this Section, we are in full agreement with the arguments of the :: 8 :: I.T.A Nos.:1654 to 1658/CHNY/2019 learned Counsel for the Assessee, as well as the learned Senior Departmental Representative that, in case the recipients have disclosed the remunerations

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

TDS by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) if the Act. In view of the second proviso to this Section, we are in full agreement with the arguments of the :: 8 :: I.T.A Nos.:1654 to 1658/CHNY/2019 learned Counsel for the Assessee, as well as the learned Senior Departmental Representative that, in case the recipients have disclosed the remunerations

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

TDS by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) if the Act. In view of the second proviso to this Section, we are in full agreement with the arguments of the :: 8 :: I.T.A Nos.:1654 to 1658/CHNY/2019 learned Counsel for the Assessee, as well as the learned Senior Departmental Representative that, in case the recipients have disclosed the remunerations

SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.173/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shriram Finance Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Shriram Transport Income Tax, Finance Company Limited), Corporate Circle 3(1), Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Chennai. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

482, 506] . But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts"." (emphasis supplied) 9. On careful reading of the above decision, we find the facts and circumstances before the Hon’ble High Court are similar to the facts

ORCHID PHARMA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

482-1-1(f)(2)(i) of the US regulation the combined effect of two or more separate transactions may be considered if such transactions taken as a whole are interrelated. It thus postulates that transactions are to be aggregated when they involve related product / services. We have also noted that the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this tribunal

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

482,463 under section 43A of the Act as capital in nature. 5.1 Failed to appreciate that the aforesaid total realized Forex loss includes INR 37,693,320 pertaining to buyer’s credit which is revenue in nature. 5.3 Failed to appreciate that realized Forex loss INR 37,693,320 is allowable under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

482 (P&H) held as under: “6. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to substantiate that in the absence of any requirement of law for making deduction of tax out of the expenditure on technical know-how which was capítalized and no amount was claimed as revenue expenditure, the deduction could be disallowed under Section

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

482 (P&H) held as under: “6. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to substantiate that in the absence of any requirement of law for making deduction of tax out of the expenditure on technical know-how which was capítalized and no amount was claimed as revenue expenditure, the deduction could be disallowed under Section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. TRACTORS AND FARM EQUIPMENT LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.151/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tractors & Farm Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Equipment Ltd., No. 33, Pottipatti New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Mahatma Plaza, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaact2761Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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)-11, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Relating To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Provision For Sales Incentive Expenses Included In The Project Promotion Expenses. In The Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Has Noted That In The Product

482 held that it is the act of setting out a permanent establishment which triggers the taxability of transaction in the source state, therefore, unless the permanent establishment is set up, the question of taxability does not arise. The judgements cited by the appellant in the written submissions above are also applicable. In view of the above, no TDS

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

482 & 484/Chny/2024 dated 25.09.2024 by observing as under:- “9.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee claimed depreciation @ 80% on UPS, stabilizers, etc., as part of block of Energy saving equipment, since Automatic power cut-off devices mounted on motors/ Automatic voltage controllers were eligible for depreciation @ 80%. Reliance

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

TDS on each employee by treating it as perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act. 5. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in holding that the claim under section 36(1)(viia) is allowable on incremental advances only and not on outstanding advances. :-3-: ITA. No:1126/Chny/2024 5.1 Learned Principal Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that the issue has been

ITO, CORPORATE WARD1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. CHERAN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

TDS of Rs.24,61,681/- was deducted. As the assesse had not filed any Return of Income (ROI) for AY under consideration, the Ld. AO proceeded to issue notice under section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act requiring filing of income tax return. No ROI was filed. There was no response to ITA Nos.1717, 1730, 1733 & 1734/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: repeated notices

ITO, CORPORATE WARD1, COIMBATORE vs. CHERAN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

TDS of Rs.24,61,681/- was deducted. As the assesse had not filed any Return of Income (ROI) for AY under consideration, the Ld. AO proceeded to issue notice under section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act requiring filing of income tax return. No ROI was filed. There was no response to ITA Nos.1717, 1730, 1733 & 1734/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: repeated notices

ITO, CORPORATE WARD1, COIMBATORE vs. CHERAN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

TDS of Rs.24,61,681/- was deducted. As the assesse had not filed any Return of Income (ROI) for AY under consideration, the Ld. AO proceeded to issue notice under section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act requiring filing of income tax return. No ROI was filed. There was no response to ITA Nos.1717, 1730, 1733 & 1734/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: repeated notices

ITO, CORPORATEWARD1, COIMBATORE vs. CHERAN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

TDS of Rs.24,61,681/- was deducted. As the assesse had not filed any Return of Income (ROI) for AY under consideration, the Ld. AO proceeded to issue notice under section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act requiring filing of income tax return. No ROI was filed. There was no response to ITA Nos.1717, 1730, 1733 & 1734/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: repeated notices

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

482/- on the ground that the advances were given out of own funds and the borrowed funds are not diverted to subsidiaries. The assessee was engaged in Multi Model Logistics and Stevedoring activities expending his business activities. The subsidiaries were developing the road, rail, port 16 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 terminal and various places. Their activities will

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

482/- on the ground that the advances were given out of own funds and the borrowed funds are not diverted to subsidiaries. The assessee was engaged in Multi Model Logistics and Stevedoring activities expending his business activities. The subsidiaries were developing the road, rail, port 16 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 terminal and various places. Their activities will