ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3293/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New No. 21/Old No. 10A, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 13.09.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of ₹.1,83,53,540/- After Setting Off Of Carry Forward Loss Of ₹.9,67,40,138/-.

391 30% Long term capital gains Rs. 22,29,830 20% Short term capital gains (Non STT) Rs. 63,67,846 30% Short term capital gains (STT) Rs.1,09,80,607 10% The total turnover for earning the above capital gain of Rs. 1.95 crores was Rs. 355.95 crores. As per the CBDT Circular No. 4 Dated: 2007 dt. 15th

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI vs. MANGAL TIRTH ESTATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1965/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income-Tax, V. No. 769, Spencer Plaza, Corporate Circle-4(1), Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023

section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and adopted deemed consideration for computation of long term capital gains. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: From the above noting the following points emerged : 1. As on 31.03.1999, Out of 1,50,000 sq.ft. the assessee company had handed over

LAKSHMINARAYAN GANESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

capital gains arising on the sale of shares of REVL in a y 2005-06. Thus, the assessee had ceased to be the owner of 95,409 shares of REVL and in turn, obtained 190,818 shares of Rane (Madras) Ltd. In November 2004, it purchased 5,347 equity shares of Rane (Madras) Ltd at the rate

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 -

gains. At that stage the aggregate of the incomes under other heads and the provisions for set off and carry forward contained in Sections 70, 72 and 74 of the Act would be premature for application. The deductions under Section 10A therefore would be prior to the commencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE, MADURAI vs. M/S RAMCO SYSTEMS LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

391/- and adjusted/setoff unabsorbed depreciation to such extent, resulting NIL taxable income. 4. Meanwhile, the AO issued impugned notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.03.2016 by taking note that the assessee company had set off unabsorbed depreciation loss related to AY 2000-01 of Rs.1,22,19,604/- with current business income and unabsorbed depreciation loss related

ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI vs. SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

391/- is hereby disallowed. (Disallowance: Rs.5,59,00,617/-)” 4. Aggrieved by an assessment order dated 17.11.2017 passed by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 92CA(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to allow appeal of the assessee by following decision of Chennai-tribunal in assessee’s own case

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

capital gains, would be entitled to be set off against income from any other sources under the same head. The claim to set off the loss cannot be deferred to subsequent years as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Milling Trading Co. P. Ltd., 211ITR 690 (Gut.). Hence, the appellant has rightly

THARMIYA SUBRAMANIAN RAMILA,MADURAI vs. ITO, WARD-1(7), MADURAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3503/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Thamiya Subramanian Ramila, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 391, K.K. Nagar, 8Th East Street, Ward 1(7), Madurai 625 020. Madurai. [Pan:Aehpr1869M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Latchana, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 226 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons That She Is An Illiterate & Her Husband Has To Look After The Tax Matters

391, K.K. Nagar, 8th East Street, Ward 1(7), Madurai 625 020. Madurai. [PAN:AEHPR1869M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, CA ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Latchana, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026 आदेश

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CALIFORNIA SOFTWARE COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3204 & 3205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. California Software Corporate Circle 1(2), V. Company Ltd., Robert V Chandran Tower, 7Th Chennai – 600 034. Tower, 149, Velacherry, Tambaram Main Road, Pallikaranai, Chennai – 600 100. Pan: Aabcc 8506B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Bhoopathy, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals By The Revenue Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 (I/C) In Ita Nos.36/2013-14 & 176/2015-16/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2009-10 & 2012-13 Dated 13.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Acit, Company Circle 1(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The

391 ITR 274, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court finally held as under:- 18. For the aforesaid reasons we answer the appeals and the questions arising therein, as formulated at the outset of this order, by holding that though section 10A, as amended, is a provision for deduction, the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CALIFORNIA SOFTWARE COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3204 & 3205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. California Software Corporate Circle 1(2), V. Company Ltd., Robert V Chandran Tower, 7Th Chennai – 600 034. Tower, 149, Velacherry, Tambaram Main Road, Pallikaranai, Chennai – 600 100. Pan: Aabcc 8506B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Bhoopathy, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals By The Revenue Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 (I/C) In Ita Nos.36/2013-14 & 176/2015-16/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2009-10 & 2012-13 Dated 13.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Acit, Company Circle 1(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The

391 ITR 274, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court finally held as under:- 18. For the aforesaid reasons we answer the appeals and the questions arising therein, as formulated at the outset of this order, by holding that though section 10A, as amended, is a provision for deduction, the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

391 (SC)/[2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC). The Head note of the case and relevant paragraph of the decision are reproduced below: "Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Bad debts Assessment years 1990-91, 1993-94 and 1994-95 Whether after 1-4-1989, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that debt, in fact

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

391 (SC)/[2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC). The Head note of the case and relevant paragraph of the decision are reproduced below: "Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Bad debts Assessment years 1990-91, 1993-94 and 1994-95 Whether after 1-4-1989, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that debt, in fact

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

gains’. The assessee has not treated the payment on revenue account but treated the same as intangible asset and incorrectly claimed depreciation. Accordingly, the depreciation claim of Rs.107.81 Lacs was disallowed. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) endorsed the views of Ld. AO that non-compete fees so paid by the assessee was not an asset which the assessee could

HARITA FEHRER LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (2),, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

gains’. The assessee has not treated the payment on revenue account but treated the same as intangible asset and incorrectly claimed depreciation. Accordingly, the depreciation claim of Rs.107.81 Lacs was disallowed. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) endorsed the views of Ld. AO that non-compete fees so paid by the assessee was not an asset which the assessee could

HARITA FEHRER LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT SALARY CIRCLE II , CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

gains’. The assessee has not treated the payment on revenue account but treated the same as intangible asset and incorrectly claimed depreciation. Accordingly, the depreciation claim of Rs.107.81 Lacs was disallowed. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) endorsed the views of Ld. AO that non-compete fees so paid by the assessee was not an asset which the assessee could

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

gains’. The assessee has not treated the payment on revenue account but treated the same as intangible asset and incorrectly claimed depreciation. Accordingly, the depreciation claim of Rs.107.81 Lacs was disallowed. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) endorsed the views of Ld. AO that non-compete fees so paid by the assessee was not an asset which the assessee could

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)

capital gains, the condition,‘transfer’ of the asset has taken place. 5. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made in the computation of ‘Book Profits’ made u/s.115JB of the Act of the amount of expenditure disallowed u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8D of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,71,85,283/- without appreciating that as clause (f) of Explanation

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)

capital gains, the condition,‘transfer’ of the asset has taken place. 5. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made in the computation of ‘Book Profits’ made u/s.115JB of the Act of the amount of expenditure disallowed u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8D of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,71,85,283/- without appreciating that as clause (f) of Explanation

M/S. VENKATESWARA HOSPITALS,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

391 ITR 274) as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Sundaram Fasteners Ltd V/s CIT (TCA No.408 of 2009; 18.06.2019) for the argument that the profits from an eligible undertaking u/s 80-IA could not be set-off against other business losses. The attention was drawn to sub-section (5) of 80- IA which