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

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\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

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

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

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)

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.” - 5 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature

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)

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.” - 5 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS certificate deducting tax u/s 194A treating it as an interest. Therefore, the A O taxed the proportionate interest of Rs.30,10,00,000/- as income of the assessee. 4. Before the ld CIT(A) , the assessee submitted that its intention was to derive value of a large project and M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. decided not to sell

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS certificate deducting tax u/s 194A treating it as an interest. Therefore, the A O taxed the proportionate interest of Rs.30,10,00,000/- as income of the assessee. 4. Before the ld CIT(A) , the assessee submitted that its intention was to derive value of a large project and M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. decided not to sell

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS certificate deducting tax u/s 194A treating it as an interest. Therefore, the A O taxed the proportionate interest of Rs.30,10,00,000/- as income of the assessee. 4. Before the ld CIT(A) , the assessee submitted that its intention was to derive value of a large project and M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. decided not to sell

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS certificate deducting tax u/s 194A treating it as an interest. Therefore, the A O taxed the proportionate interest of Rs.30,10,00,000/- as income of the assessee. 4. Before the ld CIT(A) , the assessee submitted that its intention was to derive value of a large project and M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. decided not to sell

NEELARAJ VINOTH,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CC-2, , TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Neelaraj Vinoth, Income Tax, V. 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -2, Perambalur – 621 212, Trichy. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, Assistant Commissioner Of 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, V. Income Tax, Perambalur – 621 212, Central Circle -2, Tamilnadu. Trichy. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

274-C, Thuraiyur Road, v. Income Tax, Perambalur – 621 212, Central Circle -2, Tamilnadu. Trichy. [PAN: AJUPV-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate Department by : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश

RAGHAVAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCC-22(1), TAMBARAM

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raghavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3503, Bay View House, Hiraranan, Non Corporate Circle 22(1). 5/63, Omr, Egattur, Thazambur, Tambaram, Chennai. Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu. 600 130 [Pan:Ajjpv9178L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act dated 12.03.2024 for under reporting of income. In response, the assessee e-filed his reply dated 05.04.2024 and the contents are reproduced at page 4 of the penalty order. After considering the submissions of the assessee and by observing that the assessee could not give any plausible explanation for under reported 3 I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/25

V.ANBURAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

TDS and the profit and loss account were the Auditor has advised the assessee to accept the income and the same was brought on record. The assessee statement seems to be reasonable as gross receipt offered "5.54 Crores in profit and loss account. If there was clarity on taxes the assessee could have definitely included in the return of income

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. S.SUJATHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.956, 957, 958 & 959/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2007-08)

section 274 of the Act. There was no illegality in the Department initiating penalty proceedings’’. Hence, we are inclined to reverse the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer in levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.956/Mds/2013 is allowed

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. S.SUJATHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.956, 957, 958 & 959/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2007-08)

section 274 of the Act. There was no illegality in the Department initiating penalty proceedings’’. Hence, we are inclined to reverse the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer in levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.956/Mds/2013 is allowed

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. S.SUJATHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.956, 957, 958 & 959/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2007-08)

section 274 of the Act. There was no illegality in the Department initiating penalty proceedings’’. Hence, we are inclined to reverse the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer in levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.956/Mds/2013 is allowed

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. S.SUJATHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.956, 957, 958 & 959/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2007-08)

section 274 of the Act. There was no illegality in the Department initiating penalty proceedings’’. Hence, we are inclined to reverse the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer in levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.956/Mds/2013 is allowed