INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

249 ITR 795 (SC), wherein it was held as under:- "The High Court has answered the question saying that when section 79 speaks of loss, it does not include unabsorbed depreciation or unabsorbed development rebate. We agree with the High Court." In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Subhulaxmi Mills

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

depreciation was denied by the AO in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 also. 6. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the captioned appeals before us. 7. The assessee made detailed submissions against the above adjustments during the hearing dated 10.09.2024 and the captioned appeals were disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

249/- is less than the threshold limit of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) as amended vide Finance Act, 2021 read with CBDT Instruction No.01/2022, therefore, the case cannot be subjected to reassessment proceedings and is barred by limitation. 16. The ld.Counsel further AO initiated

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 -

249 (Del. ITAT) O Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR) O Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU [2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in this regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the case law paper book. - Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support services do not constitute

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. LASER SOFT INFOSYSTEM PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation thereon, the expenditure incurred towards purchase of computer software cannot be treated as revenue expenditure. 3. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance on the claim of deduction u/s.35 of Rs.4,29,84,248/-. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that deduction under section 35 is not intended for an assessee, who does

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. LASER SOFT INFOSYSTEM PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation thereon, the expenditure incurred towards purchase of computer software cannot be treated as revenue expenditure. 3. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance on the claim of deduction u/s.35 of Rs.4,29,84,248/-. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that deduction under section 35 is not intended for an assessee, who does

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. LASER SOFT INFOSYSTEM PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation thereon, the expenditure incurred towards purchase of computer software cannot be treated as revenue expenditure. 3. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance on the claim of deduction u/s.35 of Rs.4,29,84,248/-. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that deduction under section 35 is not intended for an assessee, who does

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)

249 (Del. ITAT) - 19 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 o Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR) o Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU [2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in this regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the case law paper book. - Routine repair

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)

249 (Del. ITAT) - 19 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 o Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR) o Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU [2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in this regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the case law paper book. - Routine repair

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

2. CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd, 291 ITR 144. 3. CIT vs. Union Overseas Bank, 249 ITR 491. 4. CIT vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, 291 ITR 131. ITA Nos.1129-30/-1315-16/18 :- 20 -: 30. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

2. CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd, 291 ITR 144. 3. CIT vs. Union Overseas Bank, 249 ITR 491. 4. CIT vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, 291 ITR 131. ITA Nos.1129-30/-1315-16/18 :- 20 -: 30. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

2. CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd, 291 ITR 144. 3. CIT vs. Union Overseas Bank, 249 ITR 491. 4. CIT vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, 291 ITR 131. ITA Nos.1129-30/-1315-16/18 :- 20 -: 30. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

2. CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd, 291 ITR 144. 3. CIT vs. Union Overseas Bank, 249 ITR 491. 4. CIT vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, 291 ITR 131. ITA Nos.1129-30/-1315-16/18 :- 20 -: 30. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

depreciation was denied by the AO in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 also. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the captioned appeals before us. 6. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the captioned appeals before us. 7. The assessee made detailed submissions against the above adjustments during the hearing

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 2 , COIMBATORE vs. M.PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 40A(2)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the lease rent fixed by the concerns is purely an arrangement to avoid the income component in the hands of the assessee. 5. For these and other grounds, that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the order

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 2 , COIMBATORE vs. M.PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 40A(2)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the lease rent fixed by the concerns is purely an arrangement to avoid the income component in the hands of the assessee. 5. For these and other grounds, that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the order