VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

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

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

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

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 20 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

M.K.JAILANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed pro-tanto

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso’’ (ii) Explanation 2 to Section 195 (1) of the Act :- ‘’Section 195 - Other sums: (1

ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI vs. SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

201(IA) of the Act. 9. Thus, we do not find any merit in the present Appeals filed by the Assessee and the same are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed. The questions framed, as quoted above, are http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 23.4.19 in T.C.2184/2006 M/s.Zylog Systems Limited v. ITO answered against the Assessee

JANET CHRISTINE DEPENNING,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 & 1323/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 Janet Christine Depenning, The Income Tax Officer, 120, Velachery Main Road, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Guindy,Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aebpd 2408L]

property service, which requires patents and trade mark to be registered in various countries. The assessee has engaged foreign associate and paid them without deducting the tax u/s 195 of the Act. The assessee has argued that the foreign associates are predominantly individuals and in some cases are body corporate and these services rendered are either professional services or business

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.564 & 565/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-2015 Vodafone Cellular Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.1045-1046, Income Tax, Avinashi Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore 641 018 Coimbatore [Pan Aaacb 8614L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

201(1) treats any non-deduction /short deduction on the part of a person enjoined to deduct tax was an infraction of law and equates such failure with an assessee in default. The issue in question was only to adjudicate if the services provided for payments made for supply of personnel would be technical service u/s.194J or mere contract u/s.194C

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.564 & 565/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-2015 Vodafone Cellular Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.1045-1046, Income Tax, Avinashi Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore 641 018 Coimbatore [Pan Aaacb 8614L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

201(1) treats any non-deduction /short deduction on the part of a person enjoined to deduct tax was an infraction of law and equates such failure with an assessee in default. The issue in question was only to adjudicate if the services provided for payments made for supply of personnel would be technical service u/s.194J or mere contract u/s.194C

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ESKAY DESIGNS, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 247/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Eskay Designs, No. 25, 1St Street, Cenotaph Road, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Vs. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaafe1480C] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2018 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) 4, Chennai Dated 31.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The First Issue Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Rental Income Received By The Assessee On Sub-Letting Of Its Leased Out Properties Under The Head “Income From House Property” & The Second Issue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Allow The Expenses If They Are Paid As On 2

house property. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.” The issue involved in the present appeal is similar to that of the issue dealt with in earlier assessment years. The ld. DR could not controvert the above findings of the Tribunal having modified or reversed

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, PARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

ACIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

ACIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, PARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue