M/S J SIKILE FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION-III, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.83/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S.J Sikile Foundation, The Dcit, Plot No.1025, Street No.44, Exemption-Iii, Tvs Colony, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai. Chennai-600 101. [Pan: Aaats 1630 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Depreciation relating 2,89,419 to assets acquired during the year Assessed income 1,77,32,382 Tax thereon @30% 53,19,715 Education Cess 1,59,591 Total tax 54,79,306 Add: Interest u/s. 234B 19,61,352 Add: Interest u/s 234D 3,380 Add: 244A interest already 2,652 19,67,384 issued Tax payable

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

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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\n- Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n• Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote

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

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

249\n(Del. ITAT)\n\n- 19 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para

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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\nO Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\nO Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote

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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote

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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\n\n- 19 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para

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

depreciation was denied by the AO in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19\nalso. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the\ncaptioned appeals before us.\n6. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the\ncaptioned appeals before us.\n7. The assessee made detailed submissions against the above\nadjustments during the hearing

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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\n- Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n- Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote

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

depreciation was denied by the AO in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19\nalso. Against the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the\ncaptioned appeals before us.\n\n6.\nAgainst the above adjustments made by the AO, the assessee filed the\ncaptioned appeals before us.\n\n7.\nThe assessee made detailed submissions against the above\nadjustments during

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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote

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

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