BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

112 results for “TDS”+ Section 133A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai503Delhi466Bangalore291Jaipur127Kolkata122Chennai112Hyderabad110Chandigarh57Raipur46Ahmedabad45Visakhapatnam43Karnataka37Pune36Indore33Rajkot26Lucknow22Jodhpur19Nagpur18Cochin17Agra16Panaji16Patna13Surat13Guwahati13Allahabad7Ranchi6Varanasi4Amritsar4SC3Dehradun2Jabalpur2Telangana2Cuttack1Orissa1Calcutta1

Key Topics

TDS65Section 133A55Survey u/s 133A53Section 143(3)46Section 201(1)43Section 153C41Section 20134Addition to Income34Deduction34Disallowance

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 377/CHNY/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

1 – The order passed by the learned TDS Officer is bad in law and void-ab-initio” has not been pressed at the time of hearing of the appeals. Accordingly, the ground raised in the grounds appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The second common ground raised in the appeals of all the assessees is that

Showing 1–20 of 112 · Page 1 of 6

30
Section 194H24
Section 14722

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 2804/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

1 – The order passed by the learned TDS Officer is bad in law and void-ab-initio” has not been pressed at the time of hearing of the appeals. Accordingly, the ground raised in the grounds appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The second common ground raised in the appeals of all the assessees is that

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1415/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

1 – The order passed by the learned TDS Officer is bad in law and void-ab-initio” has not been pressed at the time of hearing of the appeals. Accordingly, the ground raised in the grounds appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The second common ground raised in the appeals of all the assessees is that

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1414/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

1 – The order passed by the learned TDS Officer is bad in law and void-ab-initio” has not been pressed at the time of hearing of the appeals. Accordingly, the ground raised in the grounds appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The second common ground raised in the appeals of all the assessees is that

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1644/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

1 – The order passed by the learned TDS Officer is bad in law and void-ab-initio” has not been pressed at the time of hearing of the appeals. Accordingly, the ground raised in the grounds appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The second common ground raised in the appeals of all the assessees is that

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 755/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

1 – The order passed by the learned TDS Officer is bad in law and void-ab-initio” has not been pressed at the time of hearing of the appeals. Accordingly, the ground raised in the grounds appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The second common ground raised in the appeals of all the assessees is that

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 376/CHNY/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

1 – The order passed by the learned TDS Officer is bad in law and void-ab-initio” has not been pressed at the time of hearing of the appeals. Accordingly, the ground raised in the grounds appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The second common ground raised in the appeals of all the assessees is that

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 754/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

1 – The order passed by the learned TDS Officer is bad in law and void-ab-initio” has not been pressed at the time of hearing of the appeals. Accordingly, the ground raised in the grounds appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The second common ground raised in the appeals of all the assessees is that

ANNAI ARUL ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 22(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1608/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1608/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

1) of the Act. Subsequently, the return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 06.08.2013 was served upon the assessee. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee was requested to produce the books of accounts, bank statements, expenses details and TDS reconciliation statement, etc. In this

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2246/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, IRS, JCIT

133A on 27.07.2014 upon the assesse. It transpired therefrom that the assesse had paid consultancy fees to non-resident parities without TDS deduction u/s 40(a)(ia). Before the Ld. AO, the assesse pleaded that the impugned expenses did not warrant TDS deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) as the services were rendered outside India for assesse’s overseas projects

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2247/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, IRS, JCIT

133A on 27.07.2014 upon the assesse. It transpired therefrom that the assesse had paid consultancy fees to non-resident parities without TDS deduction u/s 40(a)(ia). Before the Ld. AO, the assesse pleaded that the impugned expenses did not warrant TDS deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) as the services were rendered outside India for assesse’s overseas projects

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), TDS CIRCLE 1(1) (ERSTWHILE JURISDICTION), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2209/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS Officer] in treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), TDS CIRCLE 1(1) (ERSTWHILE JURISDICTION), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2205/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS Officer] in treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2215/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS Officer] in treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2204/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS Officer] in treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2212/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS Officer] in treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2201/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS Officer] in treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2211/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS Officer] in treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2203/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS Officer] in treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2214/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS Officer] in treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged