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

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section

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

2) of the Rules under the provisions of Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A

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)

ia) is for a specific violation as prescribed in the Act and the disallowance does not serve its purpose if the tax holiday benefit is given to the same…..” 8.4 The assessee had raised various grounds on the issue before us for A.Y.2010-11 to A.Y.2012-13 and had also brought to our notice that for A.Y. 2010-11, there was mistake

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)

ia) is for a specific violation as prescribed in the Act and the disallowance does not serve its purpose if the tax holiday benefit is given to the same…..” 8.4 The assessee had raised various grounds on the issue before us for A.Y.2010-11 to A.Y.2012-13 and had also brought to our notice that for A.Y. 2010-11, there was mistake

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

2) of the Rules under the provisions of Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A

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

2) of the Rules under the provisions of Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A

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

2) of the Rules under the provisions of Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A

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

2) of the Rules under the provisions of Section 115JB of\nthe Act while computing the book profit. We noted that this\nissue is also squarely covered by the Special Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd.\n[2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.)(SB), wherein it is\nheld that disallowance u/s.14A

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

depreciation on software was also decided in favor of the assessee.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "8D", "40(a)(ia)", "9(1)(vii)", "10A", "10AA", "115JB", "271(1)(c)", "274", "10(35)", "10(38)", "195" ], "issues": "1. Whether disallowance under Section 14A can exceed exempt income. 2

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

ia) is for a specific violation as\nprescribed in the Act and the disallowance does not serve its purpose if the\ntax holiday benefit is given to the same.....\"\n\n8.4 The assessee had raised various grounds on the issue before\nus for A.Y.2010-11 to A.Y.2012-13 and had also brought to our\nnotice that for A.Y. 2010-11, there

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

IA(5) of the Act will apply to the units eligible for deduction under section 80-IC of the Act in view of the provisions contained in sub- section (7) of sec 80-IC of the Act. He held that the eligible income P a g e 7 | 23 Assessment Year : 2008-09 or loss derived by the Himachal unit

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

depreciation @ 15% on the ITA Nos.554 & 561/Chny/2023 (AY 2018-19) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 4 :: capital expenditure being Rs.30,06,36,605/- [Rs.100,21,22,016 X 15%]. The AO accordingly disallowed sum of Rs.557,94,03,835/- (Rs.387,57,96,408/- + Rs.170,36,07,427) u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

depreciation @ 15% on the ITA Nos.554 & 561/Chny/2023 (AY 2018-19) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 4 :: capital expenditure being Rs.30,06,36,605/- [Rs.100,21,22,016 X 15%]. The AO accordingly disallowed sum of Rs.557,94,03,835/- (Rs.387,57,96,408/- + Rs.170,36,07,427) u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

depreciation computed at 15% on Rs.131,82,06,765/- i.e. Rs.19,77,31,015/- and balance amount of Rs.112,04,75,750/- (Rs. 131,82,06,765 – Rs.19,77,31,015) was disallowed. 7.2 Being aggrieved by the above order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) LTU - II, CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1402/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.,\nNo.1, Sardar Patel Road,\nGuindy, Chennai-600 032.\n[PAN: AAAСА 4651 L]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8(1),\nLTU-II,\nChennai.\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1663/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8,\nChennai.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nM/s. Ashok Leyl

2) of the Act, which is impermissible. The Tribunal rightly took note\nof the decision in the case of Redington India Ltd. (supra), wherein it\nwas held that the provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D\nof the Income-tax Rules, 1962 cannot be made applicable in vacuum i.e\nin the absence of exempt income. Therefore

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

depreciation. The relevant para of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yokogowa India Ltd., reported in 391 ITR 274 is extracted below for reference: 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections 10A(1); 10A (IA) and 10A (4)] that the unit that is contemplated for grant of benefit

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

depreciation. The relevant para of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yokogowa India Ltd., reported in 391 ITR 274 is extracted below for reference: 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections 10A(1); 10A (IA) and 10A (4)] that the unit that is contemplated for grant of benefit

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

depreciation. The relevant para of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yokogowa India Ltd., reported in 391 ITR 274 is extracted below for reference: 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections 10A(1); 10A (IA) and 10A (4)] that the unit that is contemplated for grant of benefit

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

depreciation. The relevant para of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yokogowa India Ltd., reported in 391 ITR 274 is extracted below for reference: 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections 10A(1); 10A (IA) and 10A (4)] that the unit that is contemplated for grant of benefit