ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SHREE BALAJI COMMUNICATIONS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 36/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Shree Balaji Communications, Income Tax, Vs. No. 18/126, Dhan Enclave, Non-Corporate Circle 20, Bhajani Kovil St., Choolaimedu, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 094. [Pan:Abifs0605A]] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. M.M. Bhusari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Senthil Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2016 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) Iv, Chennai, Dated 16.10.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. In This Appeal, The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is With Regard To Deletion Of Addition Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Towards

TDS under section 194J of the Act meant for professional/technical services/royalty. The Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of ₹.1,62,50,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by relying on the decision

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

TDS under Section 194C of the Act instead of Section 194J of the Act, whether any disallowance can be made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for short deduction of tax? An identical issue was considered by the Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. DCIT in I.T.A. No.31 & 74/Coch/2010 dated 29th

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PARRYWARE ROCA PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

TDS under Section 194C of the Act instead of Section 194J of the Act, whether any disallowance can be made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for short deduction of tax? An identical issue was considered by the Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. DCIT in I.T.A. No.31 & 74/Coch/2010 dated 29th

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

221 248 Taxman 55 wherein the\nDivision Bench of the Court followed another Division Bench judgment in\nthe case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257\n(Mad.) and held that the view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in\nCircular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, which has been relied

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

221 248 Taxman 55 wherein the\nDivision Bench of the Court followed another Division Bench judgment in\nthe case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257\n(Mad.) and held that the view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in\nCircular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, which has been relied

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

221 248 Taxman 55 wherein the\nDivision Bench of the Court followed another Division Bench judgment in\nthe case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257\n(Mad.) and held that the view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in\nCircular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, which has been relied

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

221 248 Taxman 55 wherein the\nDivision Bench of the Court followed another Division Bench judgment in\nthe case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257\n(Mad.) and held that the view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in\nCircular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, which has been relied

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

221 248 Taxman 55 wherein the\nDivision Bench of the Court followed another Division Bench judgment in\nthe case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257\n(Mad.) and held that the view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in\nCircular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, which has been relied

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

221 248 Taxman 55 wherein the\nDivision Bench of the Court followed another Division Bench judgment in\nthe case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257\n(Mad.) and held that the view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in\nCircular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, which has been relied

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

221 248 Taxman 55 wherein the\nDivision Bench of the Court followed another Division Bench judgment in\nthe case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257\n(Mad.) and held that the view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in\nCircular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, which has been relied

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)

221 248 Taxman 55 wherein the Division Bench of the Court followed another Division Bench judgment in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257 (Mad.) and held that the view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, which has been relied by the Tribunal

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)

221 248 Taxman 55 wherein the Division Bench of the Court followed another Division Bench judgment in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257 (Mad.) and held that the view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, which has been relied by the Tribunal

EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI)PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,COMPANY CIRCLE-II(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.805/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Express Publications (Madurai) P. Ltd, Vs. Dcit No.29, Express Garden, Company Circle Ii (1) Second Main Road Industrial Estate, Now Corporate Circle 2 (1) Ambattur, Chennai 600 058. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 0842D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Abirami Narendranath, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Saujanya Ranjan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

TDS u/s 40a(ii), ground Nos. 8 to 11 are in relation to disallowance on account of delayed payment of PF/ESI, ground Nos. 12 to 15 are in relation to interest paid on advance to group companies under section 36(1)(iii) and ground Nos. 16 to 17 are in relation to the depreciation claim of deferred revenue expenditure (relaunch

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

221) holding that Section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year. Respectfully following the same, we direct Ld. AO to verify the same. If no exempt income has been earned by the assessee, the impugned disallowance shall stand deleted. The Explanation to Sec.14A, in our considered opinion, is prospective in nature

EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI)PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-II(1), CHENNAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

221) holding that Section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year. Respectfully following the same, we direct Ld. AO to verify the same. If no exempt income has been earned by the assessee, the impugned disallowance shall stand deleted. The Explanation to Sec.14A, in our considered opinion, is prospective in nature

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ITO, CUDDALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

221 ITR 538. The words ‘omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that year postulates a failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all ‘material facts necessary’ for his assessment. What facts are ‘material’ and ‘necessary’ for assessment will differ from case to case. The material should not only

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATIONLIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

221 ITR 538. The words ‘omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that year postulates a failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all ‘material facts necessary’ for his assessment. What facts are ‘material’ and ‘necessary’ for assessment will differ from case to case. The material should not only

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

221 ITR 538. The words ‘omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that year postulates a failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all ‘material facts necessary’ for his assessment. What facts are ‘material’ and ‘necessary’ for assessment will differ from case to case. The material should not only

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

221 ITR 538. The words ‘omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that year postulates a failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all ‘material facts necessary’ for his assessment. What facts are ‘material’ and ‘necessary’ for assessment will differ from case to case. The material should not only