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

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

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

B.DHANASEKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.365/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri R. Dhanasekaran, The Assistant Commissioner Of R-3, Tnhb Shopping Complex, Vs. Income Tax, Shastri Nagar, 1St Avenue, Adyar, Non Corporate Circle – 15(1), Chennai 600 020. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Adxpd7168E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

TDS certificate. It was further observed that the agreements executed by the assessee with the clients are ‘contract agreements’ and not ‘development agreements’. Since the provisions of section 80IA of the Act shall not apply to a person who executes works contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprises, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

3,56,06,250/-). Therefore the flat area or saleable area has to correspond to this amount only. The price of Rs.26,414/- as explained earlier is the average price for the constructed area, amenities and the UDS of land. When the assessee had conceived the project, it had estimated the selling price of the flats at Rs.26

SHI vs. U CANADIAN CLEAR WATERS LTD.,CHENNAIVS.DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2347/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

189, the Ld. counsel submitted that on identical circumstances, the Madras High Court found in the case before it, the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and no notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act and thereafter issued notice under Section 148 of the Act for processing the reassessment. Even in that

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 -

189 2 Allround Automations Amax The Netherlands USD 1,800 81,756 3 Engineering Corporation USA USD 3,000 1,36,260 4 Apnic Pty Ltd Australia AUD 7,226 3,28,677 5 Atlassian Software Systems Pty Ltd Australia USD 5,139 2,30,484 6 Flexera Software Ltd (Ind) United Kingdom USD 8,592 3

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)

189 Allround The 2 USD 1,800 81,756 Automations Netherlands Amax 3 Engineering USA USD 3,000 1,36,260 Corporation 4 Apnic Pty Ltd Australia AUD 7,226 3,28,677 - 22 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 Atlassian Software 5 Australia USD 5,139 2,30,484 Systems Pty Ltd Flexera United 6 Software

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)

189 Allround The 2 USD 1,800 81,756 Automations Netherlands Amax 3 Engineering USA USD 3,000 1,36,260 Corporation 4 Apnic Pty Ltd Australia AUD 7,226 3,28,677 - 22 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 Atlassian Software 5 Australia USD 5,139 2,30,484 Systems Pty Ltd Flexera United 6 Software

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

3)(iii)(a) read with section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act , while rest of the additions as were made by the AO for ay: 2014-15 were confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) vide common appellate order dated 15.03.2018 passed by learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) provided relief to the assessee for interest payments made to banks

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

3)(iii)(a) read with section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act , while rest of the additions as were made by the AO for ay: 2014-15 were confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) vide common appellate order dated 15.03.2018 passed by learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) provided relief to the assessee for interest payments made to banks

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI vs. MS.AARTHI SCANS, KOVILPATTI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

section 147 of the Act, the CIT(A)-NFAC has rightly quashed the reopening and he urged the Bench to confirm the order of CIT(A)-NFAC. 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Admitted facts are that the original assessment was completed by the AO u/s.143(3

WALLACE SPORTS AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

TDS on the payment of interest to various parties. Hence, the AO have a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the ambit of section 147 of the Act and the case was re-opened. A notice u/s.148 was issued to the assessee on 02.03.2016. There was no whisper that the AO came to know

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

TDS were deducted accordingly. The promissory notes / blank\ncheque/ papers were signed and given while taking those accounted\nloans.”\n8.21 The AO however is noted to have doubted the above statement of\nShri Kiran Kumar because of electronic data later on found in a database\nin the post search enquiries which inter alia contained entries of\ntransactions with Shri Anbu

VAAS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Before the Ld.CIT(A) also the assessee had failed to produce any evidence for complying with the provisions of TDS and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO. Since the assessee has not furnished any details even before us at this stage for complying with the provisions of TDS

ITO, CHENNAI vs. ALAMELU SURESH, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.410/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-2009)

Section 40(a) (ia). The details of such payments are listed below: Sl.No Name of Parties Telecast fee expenses 1 Social Media 2,49,079 2 Siegu Solutions Ltd 84,660 3 SAREGAMA 3,42,390 4 Pyramid Saimira 4,07,505 5 New Age Entertainment Pvt. Ltd 57,895 6 Adlabs Films Ltd 47,278 7 Balaji Telefilms

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

3 raised challenging the legal validity of raised challenging the legal validity of the impugned order passed u/s 153A of the Act for want of any the impugned order passed u/s 153A of the Act for want of any the impugned order passed u/s 153A of the Act for want of any ITA Nos.675 to 675 to 680/Chny/2025

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

3 raised challenging the legal validity of raised challenging the legal validity of the impugned order passed u/s 153A of the Act for want of any the impugned order passed u/s 153A of the Act for want of any the impugned order passed u/s 153A of the Act for want of any ITA Nos.675 to 675 to 680/Chny/2025

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

3 raised challenging the legal validity of raised challenging the legal validity of the impugned order passed u/s 153A of the Act for want of any the impugned order passed u/s 153A of the Act for want of any the impugned order passed u/s 153A of the Act for want of any ITA Nos.675 to 675 to 680/Chny/2025