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

b) or Clause (c) to provide to Section 529(1). It is therefore clear that the workmen’s due is pari passu with the claim of any secured creditor. 4.3 In this regard the following Judgments are relied upon by the ld. AR: a. In Jitendra Nath Singh in (2013) 1 SSC 462, wherein it was held as follows

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits that the Revenue in earlier years accepted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the provision for gratuity for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits that the Revenue in earlier years accepted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the provision for gratuity for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits that the Revenue in earlier years accepted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the provision for gratuity for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits that the Revenue in earlier years accepted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the provision for gratuity for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits that the Revenue in earlier years accepted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the provision for gratuity for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits that the Revenue in earlier years accepted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the provision for gratuity for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits that the Revenue in earlier years accepted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the provision for gratuity for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits that the Revenue in earlier years accepted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the provision for gratuity for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits that the Revenue in earlier years accepted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the provision for gratuity for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits that the Revenue in earlier years accepted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the provision for gratuity for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue

ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE RANGE 1, CHENNAI vs. DORMA INDIA P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result appeal filed by

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

120) where it was held that depreciation can be claimed on non-compete fee in a composite agreement. The appellant submitted that Depreciation; on goodwill for A.Y. 2010-11 amounting to Rs.38,183,955/- and the depreciation for A.Y. 2011-12 amounting to Rs.28,637,966/- were claimed during the course of the assessment proceedings and not by filing revised

ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE RANGE 1, CHENNAI vs. DORMA INDIA P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result appeal filed by

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

120) where it was held that depreciation can be claimed on non-compete fee in a composite agreement. The appellant submitted that Depreciation; on goodwill for A.Y. 2010-11 amounting to Rs.38,183,955/- and the depreciation for A.Y. 2011-12 amounting to Rs.28,637,966/- were claimed during the course of the assessment proceedings and not by filing revised

ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE RANGE 1, CHENNAI vs. DORMA INDIA P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result appeal filed by

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

120) where it was held that depreciation can be claimed on non-compete fee in a composite agreement. The appellant submitted that Depreciation; on goodwill for A.Y. 2010-11 amounting to Rs.38,183,955/- and the depreciation for A.Y. 2011-12 amounting to Rs.28,637,966/- were claimed during the course of the assessment proceedings and not by filing revised

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)

120 taxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: "9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd. [TCA Nos.732 & 733 of 2018 decided on 7-7-2020], has relied upon the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments

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)

120 taxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: "9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd. [TCA Nos.732 & 733 of 2018 decided on 7-7-2020], has relied upon the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMASUBBU MINNALKODI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation, as her business income. On this\nbasis, the assessee submitted that the business income of Rs.20,64,120/- as\ndisclosed in the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year was in\nline with the statement furnished during the course of survey. It was, therefore,\nrequested that no addition be made to the returned income and that

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

120\ntaxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the\njudgment reads as follows:\n\n"9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd.\n[TCA Nos.732 & 733 of 2018 decided on 7-7-2020], has relied upon the\ndecisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint