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

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

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. COMSTAR AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES P LTD., CHENGALPUT

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

depreciation of non- EOU unit, which was decided by the Ld. CIT (A) in favour of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06. 38. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, this issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of eIT v. Yokogawa India

COMSTAR AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

depreciation of non- EOU unit, which was decided by the Ld. CIT (A) in favour of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06. 38. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, this issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of eIT v. Yokogawa India

COMSTAR AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

depreciation of non- EOU unit, which was decided by the Ld. CIT (A) in favour of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06. 38. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, this issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of eIT v. Yokogawa India

COMSTAR AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

depreciation of non- EOU unit, which was decided by the Ld. CIT (A) in favour of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06. 38. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, this issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of eIT v. Yokogawa India

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. COMSTAR AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES P LTD., CHENGALPUT

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

depreciation of non- EOU unit, which was decided by the Ld. CIT (A) in favour of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06. 38. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, this issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of eIT v. Yokogawa India

COMSTAR AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

depreciation of non- EOU unit, which was decided by the Ld. CIT (A) in favour of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06. 38. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, this issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of eIT v. Yokogawa India

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

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 41(1)(b) of the Act as it was not a case of cessation of a trade debt, there by vitiating the action in sustaining the disputed sum. 15. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the entire re-computation of taxable total income forming part of the re-assessment order was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 41(1)(b) of the Act as it was not a case of cessation of a trade debt, there by vitiating the action in sustaining the disputed sum. 15. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the entire re-computation of taxable total income forming part of the re-assessment order was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 41(1)(b) of the Act as it was not a case of cessation of a trade debt, there by vitiating the action in sustaining the disputed sum. 15. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the entire re-computation of taxable total income forming part of the re-assessment order was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified

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

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