ABAN SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1329/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 2. Stay Application No.9/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1329/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) M/S. Aban Singapore Pte. Limited Dcit बनाम/ 113, Pantheon Road, Egmore S.O International Taxation-1(1), Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqca-2845-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024

41 and therefore, impugned disallowance is not called for. 3.2 The Ld. DRP noted that the assessee had taken three rigs on hire as bareboat from Asian offshore Ltd. (AOL) and from another group entity namely deep drilling 8 Pte. Ltd. (DDPL) The assessee paid bareboat charges to the two entities. The assessee deducted TDS on payment made

M/S. T vs. AUTO ASSIST (INDIA) LTD.,,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 3 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

41,750/- as reflecting in Form 26AS but restricting the same to Rs.41,65,734/- resulting in short credit of Rs.6,76,016/-. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that TDS is allowable only to the extent income is offered as per section

VNC STEEL DISTRIBUTORS,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1937/Chny/2024 & Stay Petition No: 40/Chny/2024 [In Ita No: 1937/Chny/2024)] िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vnc Steel Distributors, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, S. Vellalapatti, Circle -1(1), Karur – 639 004. Trichy. [Pan: Aadfv-9137-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

TDS u/s.194H of the Act, which are provided as target incentive to increase the volume of sales. Since, these payments are made by the assessee towards a promotional activities to increase the sales volume of the products on Principal-Principal basis, we are of the considered view that, there is no relationship of Principal- Agent between the assessee

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. FRONTIER OFFSHORE EXPLORATION (INDIA) LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2016 धनिाजरण वर्ज Assessment Year: 2007-08

41 and sections 43 and 43A. The aggregate amounts are quantified in sub-section (2) of sec. 44BB to be the amount paid or payable, received or deemed to be received etc. As per the sub-section (3) of sec. 44BB the non-resident can claim a lower profit. It is for the purpose of claiming lower profits that

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.748/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

Section 41 cannot be applied as amounts were disallowed in earlier year: 3.1 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO to make an addition of reversal of generation tax as income u/s 41(1) of the Act without understanding the facts that the same were disallowed in the earlier assessment year

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1) (I/C) , CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1199/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Credit Company Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1) I/C, Limited, Shriram House, No. 4, Aayakar Bhavan, Wanaparthy Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Block, 7Th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri R.Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 26.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment

41,454/- on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. On appeal, by following the decision of the Tribunal, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the disallowance under section 14A of the Act while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act and allowed the ground raised by the assessee, against which

SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1199/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Credit Company Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1) I/C, Limited, Shriram House, No. 4, Aayakar Bhavan, Wanaparthy Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Block, 7Th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri R.Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 26.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment

41,454/- on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. On appeal, by following the decision of the Tribunal, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the disallowance under section 14A of the Act while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act and allowed the ground raised by the assessee, against which

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 -

41. Having regard to the language of section 14A(2) of the Act, read with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under section 144 was not correct. It will

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)

41. Having regard to the language of section 14A(2) of the Act, read with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under section 14A was not - 10 - ITA Nos.1193

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)

41. Having regard to the language of section 14A(2) of the Act, read with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under section 14A was not - 10 - ITA Nos.1193

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SRM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.489/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S.Srm Engineering Construction Dcit बनाम/ Corporation Ltd. Central Circle-1(3) No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1084/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S.Srm Engineering बनाम/ Central Circle-1(3) Construction Corporation Ltd. Chennai. No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2024

41(1) could be made out against the assessee. Therefore, concurring with uncontroverted factual findings rendered in the impugned order in terms of remand report of Ld. AO, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the impinged order, on this issue. In the result, the corresponding grounds raised by the revenue stand dismissed

SRM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.489/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S.Srm Engineering Construction Dcit बनाम/ Corporation Ltd. Central Circle-1(3) No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1084/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S.Srm Engineering बनाम/ Central Circle-1(3) Construction Corporation Ltd. Chennai. No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2024

41(1) could be made out against the assessee. Therefore, concurring with uncontroverted factual findings rendered in the impugned order in terms of remand report of Ld. AO, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the impinged order, on this issue. In the result, the corresponding grounds raised by the revenue stand dismissed

TEMENOS INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 195. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that there is no dispute on the fact that the payment was made only for the purchase of software. 2. Drawing attention to grounds of appeal, Ld. AR submitted that the issue of requirement of deduction of tax at source (TDS) on royalty payment now stand covered

V.ANBURAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

41,42,995 described as TDS reimbursement on the wrong understanding that since it was borne by the bank from whom the amount was received for professional services, it would not be liable to tax. The explanation for the omission under the circumstances should have been accepted when the particulars including the amounts received and tax deduction certificates were. filed

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)

41,552) was transferred to SEBI. :-6-: ITA. No: 1982 & 2119/Chny/2024 CO No: 60/Chny/2024 11. So as to have a further clarity on this matter, bank statements of the above mentioned individuals/entities (from which funds were transferred to Shri Vinoth's account) were called for and analysed. The results of this analysis was revealing" in the true sense

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

TDS deduction by Surat Branch on MICR payments to SBI. We have dealt on the legal issue in assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No. 2034/2014, where the disputed matter was remitted to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the legal issue and pass the order on merits and we find disputed issue in the present assessment year

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

TDS deduction by Surat Branch on MICR payments to SBI. We have dealt on the legal issue in assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No. 2034/2014, where the disputed matter was remitted to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the legal issue and pass the order on merits and we find disputed issue in the present assessment year

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

TDS deduction by Surat Branch on MICR payments to SBI. We have dealt on the legal issue in assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No. 2034/2014, where the disputed matter was remitted to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the legal issue and pass the order on merits and we find disputed issue in the present assessment year