M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

41, Periasamy Road (East), v. Income-tax / The DCIT, R.S.Puram, Company Circle-IV(2), Coimbatore-641002. Coimbatore. PAN AAKCS7439J (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 22.03.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2016 आदेश

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

41, Periasamy Road (East), v. Income-tax / The DCIT, R.S.Puram, Company Circle-IV(2), Coimbatore-641002. Coimbatore. PAN AAKCS7439J (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 22.03.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2016 आदेश

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

4) which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government) and executed by the undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub- section(1).” & C.O No.50/CHNY/2016 We noted that this explanation has not at all been examined whether the assessee falls as a work contractor in this case in term

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

4) which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government) and executed by the undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub- section(1).” & C.O No.50/CHNY/2016 We noted that this explanation has not at all been examined whether the assessee falls as a work contractor in this case in term

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section

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

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Appellate Tribunal is competent to pass such orders on the appeal as it thinks fit and there is nothing in the Act which restricts the Tribunal to a determination of the question raised before the Department. All questions whether of law or of fact which relate to the assessment

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

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 199 of the Act read with rule 37BA. It is submitted that such interpretation is contrary

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

4 of the appeal is dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 5. Disallowance of Rs.2,51,293/- towards EPF, PF & ESI contribution of the job workers: 5.1 The ld.AR submitted that these payments have been directly made by the company towards contribution to EPF, ESI with respect to job of workers. Since

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

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

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,LTU(2), CHENNAI

Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.661/Chny/2019, 202 & 203/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-2018) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Ltu (2) Chennai. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.914/Chny/2019, 253 & 254/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17&2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Ltu (2) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024

41(4) of the Act whilst granting relief .The Revenue has failed to point out any legal or factual error in CIT(A)’s findings Therefore, the same are affirmed. However, as a matter of caution, we observe that the assessee’s claim of bad years, if any, shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With these observations, the Revenue

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ARUN PLASTO MOULDERS INDIA PVT LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1274/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10

41,328/- on 30.09.2009. The return filed by the assessee was initially process under Section 143(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Thereafter, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and the A.O. has disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 80-IC of the Act and also disallowed mould

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 & 43A stand excluded, the method of computing the business income of the non-resident on the basis of the books of accounts goes out of the picture. Then it is only the provisions of section 44AD, 44AE & 44AF which could be applied and the same obviously do not apply to the income of the non-resident

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

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

TDS in a case where the interest payment exceeds maximum amount chargeable to tax for the relevant assessment year, even if depositors submits Form 15G & 15H. Since, the appellant has failed to comply with provisions of section 197A(1A), 197A(1B) & 197A(1C) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has rightly rejected declaration submitted by the appellant and disallowed interest