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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs 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. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs 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 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

TDS while paying the said amount. In the scrutiny assessment, AO noticed the above and observed that the said payments constitute royalty as contained in Explanation-2 read with Explanation-3 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. AO invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 26. During the first appellate proceedings, CIT (A) observed

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

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)

7. Grounds No.2 & 3 relates to the claim of depreciation on electrical fittings at 10% as against the claim at 15%. This issue has already been adjudicated against the assessee in Grounds No.2 & 3 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reasoning applies to the present case as well. ITA Nos.2380 & 4645/Chny/2018 & ITA Nos.5404

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)

7. Grounds No.2 & 3 relates to the claim of depreciation on electrical fittings at 10% as against the claim at 15%. This issue has already been adjudicated against the assessee in Grounds No.2 & 3 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reasoning applies to the present case as well. ITA Nos.2380 & 4645/Chny/2018 & ITA Nos.5404

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)

7. Grounds No.2 & 3 relates to the claim of depreciation on electrical fittings at 10% as against the claim at 15%. This issue has already been adjudicated against the assessee in Grounds No.2 & 3 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reasoning applies to the present case as well. ITA Nos.2380 & 4645/Chny/2018 & ITA Nos.5404

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)

7. Grounds No.2 & 3 relates to the claim of depreciation on electrical fittings at 10% as against the claim at 15%. This issue has already been adjudicated against the assessee in Grounds No.2 & 3 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reasoning applies to the present case as well. ITA Nos.2380 & 4645/Chny/2018 & ITA Nos.5404

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)

7. Grounds No.2 & 3 relates to the claim of depreciation on electrical fittings at 10% as against the claim at 15%. This issue has already been adjudicated against the assessee in Grounds No.2 & 3 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reasoning applies to the present case as well. ITA Nos.2380 & 4645/Chny/2018 & ITA Nos.5404

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

Section 10A of the Act. The sole crux of the issue lies on the date on which the production is actually commenced. For claiming exemption, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the paper book, where the assessee’s company name was changed from earlier Zeetron Solutions Pvt. Ltd to present Prodapt Solutions Pvt. Ltd on 22.05.2000, and approval from

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

7 -: 2.4 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The issue is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC) in favour of assessee. The questions raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court are under: The broad question indicated

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

7 -: 2.4 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The issue is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC) in favour of assessee. The questions raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court are under: The broad question indicated

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

7 -: 2.4 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The issue is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC) in favour of assessee. The questions raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court are under: The broad question indicated

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

7 -: 2.4 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The issue is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC) in favour of assessee. The questions raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court are under: The broad question indicated

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TURBO ENERGY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

7 -: 2.4 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The issue is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC) in favour of assessee. The questions raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court are under: The broad question indicated

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

7 -: 2.4 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The issue is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC) in favour of assessee. The questions raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court are under: The broad question indicated