DISHNET WIRELESS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 & 329/Mds/2014 & S.P. Nos.324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332 & 333/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.320 To 329/Mds/2014) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

Section 194C of the Act. The revenue authorities found that it is to be presumed that the work had to be carried out by a contractor and the payment for that work had been deferred to a future date falling outside the relevant accounting year. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, Accounting Standard – 29 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants

DISHNET WIRELESS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 & 329/Mds/2014 & S.P. Nos.324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332 & 333/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.320 To 329/Mds/2014) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

Section 194C of the Act. The revenue authorities found that it is to be presumed that the work had to be carried out by a contractor and the payment for that work had been deferred to a future date falling outside the relevant accounting year. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, Accounting Standard – 29 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants

DISHNET WIRELESS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 & 329/Mds/2014 & S.P. Nos.324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332 & 333/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.320 To 329/Mds/2014) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

Section 194C of the Act. The revenue authorities found that it is to be presumed that the work had to be carried out by a contractor and the payment for that work had been deferred to a future date falling outside the relevant accounting year. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, Accounting Standard – 29 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants

DISHNET WIRELESS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 & 329/Mds/2014 & S.P. Nos.324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332 & 333/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.320 To 329/Mds/2014) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

Section 194C of the Act. The revenue authorities found that it is to be presumed that the work had to be carried out by a contractor and the payment for that work had been deferred to a future date falling outside the relevant accounting year. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, Accounting Standard – 29 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants

DISHNET WIRELESS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 & 329/Mds/2014 & S.P. Nos.324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332 & 333/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.320 To 329/Mds/2014) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

Section 194C of the Act. The revenue authorities found that it is to be presumed that the work had to be carried out by a contractor and the payment for that work had been deferred to a future date falling outside the relevant accounting year. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, Accounting Standard – 29 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants

DISHNET WIRELESS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 & 329/Mds/2014 & S.P. Nos.324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332 & 333/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.320 To 329/Mds/2014) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

Section 194C of the Act. The revenue authorities found that it is to be presumed that the work had to be carried out by a contractor and the payment for that work had been deferred to a future date falling outside the relevant accounting year. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, Accounting Standard – 29 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants

DISHNET WIRELESS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 & 329/Mds/2014 & S.P. Nos.324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332 & 333/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.320 To 329/Mds/2014) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

Section 194C of the Act. The revenue authorities found that it is to be presumed that the work had to be carried out by a contractor and the payment for that work had been deferred to a future date falling outside the relevant accounting year. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, Accounting Standard – 29 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants

DISHNET WIRELESS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 & 329/Mds/2014 & S.P. Nos.324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332 & 333/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.320 To 329/Mds/2014) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

Section 194C of the Act. The revenue authorities found that it is to be presumed that the work had to be carried out by a contractor and the payment for that work had been deferred to a future date falling outside the relevant accounting year. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, Accounting Standard – 29 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants

T.V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. ,MADURAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , MADURAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

Depreciation 2150.06 14068.62 Less: Taxes paid -3472.62 Less: Dividend & Dividend Tax -6107.29 Balance 4488.71 Less: Investments made during the year in companies 656 Balance Surplus 3832.71 Amount Lent to TVS Srichakra 1500 (issue on diversion) Opening investment 17531.21 Opening Reserves & Surplus 42040.33 Closing investments 15233.89 Closing Reserves & Surplus 45158.25 ITA Nos.2758-2761/Chny/2019 & :- 17 -: 8.4 In view of the above, the Ld.Counsel

T.V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. ,MADURAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , MADURAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

Depreciation 2150.06 14068.62 Less: Taxes paid -3472.62 Less: Dividend & Dividend Tax -6107.29 Balance 4488.71 Less: Investments made during the year in companies 656 Balance Surplus 3832.71 Amount Lent to TVS Srichakra 1500 (issue on diversion) Opening investment 17531.21 Opening Reserves & Surplus 42040.33 Closing investments 15233.89 Closing Reserves & Surplus 45158.25 ITA Nos.2758-2761/Chny/2019 & :- 17 -: 8.4 In view of the above, the Ld.Counsel

T.V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. ,MADURAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , MADURAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

Depreciation 2150.06 14068.62 Less: Taxes paid -3472.62 Less: Dividend & Dividend Tax -6107.29 Balance 4488.71 Less: Investments made during the year in companies 656 Balance Surplus 3832.71 Amount Lent to TVS Srichakra 1500 (issue on diversion) Opening investment 17531.21 Opening Reserves & Surplus 42040.33 Closing investments 15233.89 Closing Reserves & Surplus 45158.25 ITA Nos.2758-2761/Chny/2019 & :- 17 -: 8.4 In view of the above, the Ld.Counsel

T.V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. ,MADURAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , MADURAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

Depreciation 2150.06 14068.62 Less: Taxes paid -3472.62 Less: Dividend & Dividend Tax -6107.29 Balance 4488.71 Less: Investments made during the year in companies 656 Balance Surplus 3832.71 Amount Lent to TVS Srichakra 1500 (issue on diversion) Opening investment 17531.21 Opening Reserves & Surplus 42040.33 Closing investments 15233.89 Closing Reserves & Surplus 45158.25 ITA Nos.2758-2761/Chny/2019 & :- 17 -: 8.4 In view of the above, the Ld.Counsel

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , MADURAI vs. T.V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. , MADURAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

Depreciation 2150.06 14068.62 Less: Taxes paid -3472.62 Less: Dividend & Dividend Tax -6107.29 Balance 4488.71 Less: Investments made during the year in companies 656 Balance Surplus 3832.71 Amount Lent to TVS Srichakra 1500 (issue on diversion) Opening investment 17531.21 Opening Reserves & Surplus 42040.33 Closing investments 15233.89 Closing Reserves & Surplus 45158.25 ITA Nos.2758-2761/Chny/2019 & :- 17 -: 8.4 In view of the above, the Ld.Counsel

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A