THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for ay 2005-06 & 2006-07

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

section Clause 5A of the Sugarcane Control 1966, at Rs.1,48,35, 532/-, the A R submitted that the company estimated the additional price payable at Rs.1,48,35,532/- and claimed it as a deduction. Subsequently, when the sugar year was completed ,the assessee found that the profit did not exist and , therefore , the provision for additional price need

THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for ay 2005-06 & 2006-07

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

section Clause 5A of the Sugarcane Control 1966, at Rs.1,48,35, 532/-, the A R submitted that the company estimated the additional price payable at Rs.1,48,35,532/- and claimed it as a deduction. Subsequently, when the sugar year was completed ,the assessee found that the profit did not exist and , therefore , the provision for additional price need

TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1036/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Tamilnadu Industrial The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Limited, V. Income Tax, 19-A, Rukminilakshmipathy Road, Corporate Circle 3(1), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aaact-3409-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024

TDS claimed, a net demand of Rs.61,53,499/- was raised. While completing the Assessment the following additions/disallowance have been made by the A.O. a) Disallowance of claim of interest tax paid to the extent of Rs. 9,98,46,515/- b) Disallowance of Rs.69,699/- on account of delay in payment of employees’ contribution to PF and c) Levy

MERIDIAN APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee as well as that of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

5A) of the Companies Act. 3.2 ITA No.380 of 2017, Assessment year 2012-13:- The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Ld.AO invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, with respect to foreign bank

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MERIDIAN APPARELS LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee as well as that of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

5A) of the Companies Act. 3.2 ITA No.380 of 2017, Assessment year 2012-13:- The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Ld.AO invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, with respect to foreign bank

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MERIDIAN APPARELS LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee as well as that of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

5A) of the Companies Act. 3.2 ITA No.380 of 2017, Assessment year 2012-13:- The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Ld.AO invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, with respect to foreign bank

MERIDIAN APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee as well as that of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

5A) of the Companies Act. 3.2 ITA No.380 of 2017, Assessment year 2012-13:- The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Ld.AO invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, with respect to foreign bank

MR.K E GNANAVELRAJ / PROPRIETOR,CHENNAI vs. CIT[A], CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.403/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri K.E. Gnanavelraja, Old No.16, New No.13 Income Tax, Jagadeeshwari Road, Central Circle-1(2) T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. Pan :Agapg 5673M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, though, it was specifically reported in the audit report that TDS was deductible, but was not deducted and was not deposited wherever it was deducted. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed rectification order u/s.154 of the Act dated 26.11.2019, whereby the Assessing Officer has disallowed the following:- Total income as per order

TEAM HR SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CIR 3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.629/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Team Hr Services Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, No. 5. 5A, New No. 9, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Room No. 411, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Randstad House, Pycrofts Garden Road, Nungambakkam, Bhavan, Wanaparthy Block, Chennai 600 006. 121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacct2148K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 10.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Filed A Letter Dated 30.06.2022, Wherein, It Was Stated As Under:

5A, New No. 9, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Room No. 411, 4th Floor, Aayakar Randstad House, Pycrofts Garden Road, Nungambakkam, Bhavan, Wanaparthy Block, Chennai 600 006. 121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AACCT2148K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent

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)

TDS. 31. On appeal, the CIT(A) noted that out of the total disallowance of ₹.87,77,367/-, the assessee incurred an amount of ₹.55,97,827/- towards sales promotion and sales commission outside India, a sum of ₹.5,90,886/- was paid towards professional charges (legal and consultancy) and an amount of ₹.25,97,654/- was paid towards market

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)

TDS. 31. On appeal, the CIT(A) noted that out of the total disallowance of ₹.87,77,367/-, the assessee incurred an amount of ₹.55,97,827/- towards sales promotion and sales commission outside India, a sum of ₹.5,90,886/- was paid towards professional charges (legal and consultancy) and an amount of ₹.25,97,654/- was paid towards market

DEPUTY COMMISSINOER OF INCOME TAX,, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

TDS u/s.195\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Ground No.2 of the Revenue\nstands dismissed and on the very same reasoning, similar grounds raised\nby the department in other appeals as noted in the chart supra stands\ndismissed.\n5.\nGround No.3 / Issue 2: Disallowance of excess depreciation\non UPS\n Assessment Year\nAppeal by\nGround

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

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

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

TDS u/s.195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Ground No.2 of the Revenue stands dismissed and on the very same reasoning, similar grounds raised by the department in other appeals as noted in the chart supra stands dismissed. 5. Ground No.3 / Issue 2: Disallowance of excess depreciation on UPS Assessment Year Appeal by Ground No. AY 2011-12 Department

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

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

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

TDS u/s.195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Ground No.2 of the Revenue stands dismissed and on the very same reasoning, similar grounds raised by the department in other appeals as noted in the chart supra stands dismissed. 5. Ground No.3 / Issue 2: Disallowance of excess depreciation on UPS Assessment Year Appeal by Ground No. AY 2011-12 Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

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

TDS u/s.195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Ground No.2 of the Revenue stands dismissed and on the very same reasoning, similar grounds raised by the department in other appeals as noted in the chart supra stands dismissed. 5. Ground No.3 / Issue 2: Disallowance of excess depreciation on UPS Assessment Year Appeal by Ground No. AY 2011-12 Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

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

TDS u/s.195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Ground No.2 of the Revenue stands dismissed and on the very same reasoning, similar grounds raised by the department in other appeals as noted in the chart supra stands dismissed. 5. Ground No.3 / Issue 2: Disallowance of excess depreciation on UPS Assessment Year Appeal by Ground No. AY 2011-12 Department

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

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

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

TDS u/s.195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Ground No.2 of the Revenue stands dismissed and on the very same reasoning, similar grounds raised by the department in other appeals as noted in the chart supra stands dismissed. 5. Ground No.3 / Issue 2: Disallowance of excess depreciation on UPS Assessment Year Appeal by Ground No. AY 2011-12 Department

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

TDS u/s.195\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Ground No.2 of the Revenue\nstands dismissed and on the very same reasoning, similar grounds raised\nby the department in other appeals as noted in the chart supra stands\ndismissed.\n5.\nGround No.3 / Issue 2: Disallowance of excess depreciation\non UPS\n Assessment Year\nAppeal by\nGround

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

TDS u/s.195\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Ground No.2 of the Revenue\nstands dismissed and on the very same reasoning, similar grounds raised\nby the department in other appeals as noted in the chart supra stands\ndismissed.\n5.\nGround No.3 / Issue 2: Disallowance of excess depreciation\non UPS\n Assessment Year\nAppeal by\nGround