M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

199 to 287 of the paperbook) in the following manner: Grounds Raised Result 1 Levy of tax under Section 115QA of the Act. Upheld the Assessment Order 2 Addition under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act Deleted the adjustments 3 Disallowance

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

disallowed the impugned sum for non-deduction of TDS. We however are unable to subscribe to such a view of the Revenue. According to us, Section 195 of the Act gets attracted in respect of tax on chargeable income, if any, paid to a non-resident. Where there is no liability, the question of tax deduction does not arise. Where

FUJI ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

disallowance under this section is not applicable due to the following: • Section 40(a)(ia) applies only in cases of non-compliance with Chapter XVII-B (TDS provisions). • TDS is not attracted on mere provision entries. Provisions are based on best estimates as of 31 March, and liability crystallizes only upon receipt of invoices. • As per Section 199

JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-2, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

disallowance contemplated u/s.14A triggers and the AO shall compute such disallowance by invoking Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962 and thus, there is no error in the reasons given by the AO towards disallowance u/s.14A and the order of the AO should be upheld. 14.3 The ld.AR for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that this issue

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT-RANGE-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of\n0.5% of the dividend yielding investment after hearing the assessee.\n12.\nThe next ground of Revenue in Ground Nos.5 & 6 is against the\naction of Ld.CIT(A) allowing the provision for standard asset as deduction\nu/s.36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act.\n:: 10 ::\nITA Nos.1263/Chny/2023 &\n817/Chny/2024 (AY 2011-12)\nIDFC Limited\n13.\nBrief facts as noted

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

disallowed the impugned sum for\nnon-deduction of TDS. We however are unable to subscribe to such a view\nof the Revenue. According to us, Section 195 of the Act gets attracted in\nrespect of tax on chargeable income, if any, paid to a non-resident.\nWhere there is no liability, the question of tax deduction does not arise.\nWhere

VNC STEEL DISTRIBUTORS,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1937/Chny/2024 & Stay Petition No: 40/Chny/2024 [In Ita No: 1937/Chny/2024)] िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vnc Steel Distributors, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, S. Vellalapatti, Circle -1(1), Karur – 639 004. Trichy. [Pan: Aadfv-9137-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

disallowing this expenditure u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act by dismissing the ground Nos.7 to 10 raised by the assessee. 6.Disallowance of Rs.3,03,99,796/- payment towards incentive paid to dealers on promotional schemes: 6.1 The ld.AR stated that these payments are made to the dealers for promotion of products in the state of Tamilnadu and Pondicherry. These payments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of\n0.5% of the dividend yielding investment after hearing the assessee.\n12. The next ground of Revenue in Ground Nos.5 & 6 is against the\naction of Ld.CIT(A) allowing the provision for standard asset as deduction\nu/s.36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act.\n:: 10 ::\nITA Nos.1263/Chny/2023 &\n817/Chny/2024 (AY 2011-12)\nIDFC Limited\n13. Brief facts as noted

SIVAKARTHIKEYAN TRANSPORTS,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 KARUR, KARUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakarthikeyan Transports, The Income Tax Officer, 23, Pasuapthypuram, Vs. Ward-2, Karur – 639001. Karur. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaias 3396N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054458891(1), Dated 19.07.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: (A) The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Against The Probabilities & Evidence Of Facts Put Forth Before It & Also Contrary To Settled Principles With Regard To The Law On Taxation. :- 2 -:

Section 40A(3) and prayed for allowing ground of appeal of the assessee in respect of expenditure disallowed on account of all three heads. 7. Further, the ld.AR stated that the expenditure on account of Repairs and maintenance paid in cash to the tune of Rs.25,03,866/- is paid to the drivers and cleaners, who have acted as agents

YCH LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM, TAMILNADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -3(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ych Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech Sez Phase Ii, V. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacy-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

199. 26. Further, the term ‘services’ has not been defined in the Act. In this regard, the provisions of section 10AA of the Act refers to the SEZ Act, a reference could be drawn to the definition of the term :-32-: ITA. No: 1330/Chny/2023 ‘services’ as defined in the SEZ Act and section 2(z) of the same is reproduced

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,LTU(2), CHENNAI

Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.661/Chny/2019, 202 & 203/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-2018) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Ltu (2) Chennai. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.914/Chny/2019, 253 & 254/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17&2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Ltu (2) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024

disallowed an amount of Rs.6,43,03,875/- as excess depreciation claimed on ATM on the contention that ATM is not a computer and is only a part of general plant and machinery. The ld. counsel pointed out that the issue of depreciation on ATM has been partly decided in favour of assessee by the co-ordinate bench

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRLE-8, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

disallowed an amount of Rs.6,43,03,875/- as excess depreciation claimed\non ATM on the contention that ATM is not a computer and is only a part of general\nplant and machinery. The Id. counsel pointed out that the issue of depreciation on\nATM has been partly decided in favour of assessee by the co-ordinate bench

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Assessing Officer proposed for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)of the Act, which is an identical provisions, where the income escaped assessment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, attracts penalty. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Assessing Officer proposed for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)of the Act, which is an identical provisions, where the income escaped assessment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, attracts penalty. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Assessing Officer proposed for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)of the Act, which is an identical provisions, where the income escaped assessment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, attracts penalty. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Assessing Officer proposed for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)of the Act, which is an identical provisions, where the income escaped assessment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, attracts penalty. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-2, CHENNAI

disallowed an amount of Rs.6,43,03,875/- as excess depreciation claimed\non ATM on the contention that ATM is not a computer and is only a part of general\nplant and machinery. The Id. counsel pointed out that the issue of depreciation on\nATM has been partly decided in favour of assessee by the co-ordinate bench

M/S. KARUR VYSYA BANK,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1),, TRICHY

disallowance u/s. 14A is permissible in terms of\nRule 8D, where the assessee is engaged in banking business. A\nsimilar view is taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof South Indian Bank Ltd vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 9606 of\n2011, and held that shares and securities held by a bank are\nstock-in-trade

M/S T vs. SRICHAKRA LIMITED,MADURAIVS.DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 36/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tvs Srichakra Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 7-B, Tvs Building, V. Income Tax, West Veli Street, Corporate Circle, Madurai – 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Aaact-5557-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2023

disallowing deduction under section 801C of the Act applying provision of section 80A / 80AC. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had filed return of income within time i.e on or before 30.11.2016. The CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had filed a belated return