COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

10A/ 10AA of the Act is infructuous and accordingly, dismissed. - 14 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 8. Issue 2: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance u/s.40

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

TDS while paying the said amount. In the scrutiny\nassessment, AO noticed the above and observed that the said payments constitute\nroyalty as contained in Explanation-2 read with Explanation-3 to Section 9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act. AO invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n26. During the first appellate proceedings, CIT (A) observed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

TDS while paying the said amount. In the scrutiny\nassessment, AO noticed the above and observed that the said payments constitute\nroyalty as contained in Explanation-2 read with Explanation-3 to section 9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act. AO invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n26. During the first appellate proceedings, CIT (A) observed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

TDS while paying the said amount. In the scrutiny\nassessment, AO noticed the above and observed that the said payments constitute\n\n- 32 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\nroyalty as contained in Explanation-2 read with Explanation-3 to section 9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act. AO invoked the provisions of section

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

TDS while paying the said amount. In the scrutiny\nassessment, AO noticed the above and observed that the said payments constitute\nroyalty as contained in Explanation-2 read with Explanation-3 to Section 9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act. AO invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n26. During the first appellate proceedings, CIT (A) observed

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

TDS while paying the said amount. In the scrutiny\nassessment, AO noticed the above and observed that the said payments constitute\n\n- 32 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\nroyalty as contained in Explanation-2 read with Explanation-3 to section 9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act. AO invoked the provisions of section

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

TDS while paying the said amount. In the scrutiny\nassessment, AO noticed the above and observed that the said payments constitute\nroyalty as contained in Explanation-2 read with Explanation-3 to section 9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act. AO invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n26. During the first appellate proceedings, CIT (A) observed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

TDS while paying the said amount. In the scrutiny\nassessment, AO noticed the above and observed that the said payments constitute\nroyalty as contained in Explanation-2 read with Explanation-3 to section 9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act. AO invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n26. During the first appellate proceedings, CIT (A) observed

SHASUN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2380/Chny/2018 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of (Merged With M/S. Strides Shasun Vs. Income Tax, Ltd., Now Known As Strides Pharma Non Corporate Circle-6(1), Science Ltd.,) Chennai. No.28, Batra Centre, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aadcs 8104P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS not remitted before the due date prescribed for filling return u/s 139(1). This issue has already been adjudicated in Grounds No.4 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reasoning applies to the present case as well. 7.2 Ground No. 6 to 8 relates to allocation of foreign exchange loss fluctuation

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2380/Chny/2018 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of (Merged With M/S. Strides Shasun Vs. Income Tax, Ltd., Now Known As Strides Pharma Non Corporate Circle-6(1), Science Ltd.,) Chennai. No.28, Batra Centre, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aadcs 8104P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS not remitted before the due date prescribed for filling return u/s 139(1). This issue has already been adjudicated in Grounds No.4 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reasoning applies to the present case as well. 7.2 Ground No. 6 to 8 relates to allocation of foreign exchange loss fluctuation

DCIT CIRCLE-15 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHASUN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD NOW KNOW AS STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2380/Chny/2018 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of (Merged With M/S. Strides Shasun Vs. Income Tax, Ltd., Now Known As Strides Pharma Non Corporate Circle-6(1), Science Ltd.,) Chennai. No.28, Batra Centre, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aadcs 8104P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS not remitted before the due date prescribed for filling return u/s 139(1). This issue has already been adjudicated in Grounds No.4 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reasoning applies to the present case as well. 7.2 Ground No. 6 to 8 relates to allocation of foreign exchange loss fluctuation

DCIT-15(3)(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.SHASUN PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED (MERGED WITH STRIDES SHASUN LIMITED), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2380/Chny/2018 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of (Merged With M/S. Strides Shasun Vs. Income Tax, Ltd., Now Known As Strides Pharma Non Corporate Circle-6(1), Science Ltd.,) Chennai. No.28, Batra Centre, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aadcs 8104P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS not remitted before the due date prescribed for filling return u/s 139(1). This issue has already been adjudicated in Grounds No.4 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reasoning applies to the present case as well. 7.2 Ground No. 6 to 8 relates to allocation of foreign exchange loss fluctuation

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC - 6 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2380/Chny/2018 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of (Merged With M/S. Strides Shasun Vs. Income Tax, Ltd., Now Known As Strides Pharma Non Corporate Circle-6(1), Science Ltd.,) Chennai. No.28, Batra Centre, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aadcs 8104P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS not remitted before the due date prescribed for filling return u/s 139(1). This issue has already been adjudicated in Grounds No.4 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reasoning applies to the present case as well. 7.2 Ground No. 6 to 8 relates to allocation of foreign exchange loss fluctuation

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AVALON TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: Income-tax Officer – Ward

AVALON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: Income-tax Officer – Ward

AVALON TECHNOLOIGES (P) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: Income-tax Officer – Ward

VERIZON DATA SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.998/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow”. :- 5 -: 6.1 In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT

PRODAPT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1015/Mds/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 M/S. Prodapt Solutions Pvt Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Seshadri Road, V. Income Tax, Alwarpet, Corporate Circle –5(2), Chennai – 600 018. Chennai – 600 034. Pan : Aaacz0985G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vivekanandan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2017

10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and whereas the actual manufacturing of production commenced in the financial year 2000-01 being the assessment year 2001-02 and not assessment year 1999-2000 as assumed by the assessing authority. 2.2 The Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure incurred towards communication expenses under provisions of Section