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

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

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

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 -

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing. 4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require any adjudication, therefore, we move

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)

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.” - 5 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature

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)

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.” - 5 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature

MARG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal

MARG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 10B was made applicable and loss of 10B unit (which was already set off against the income of non-10B unit in the preceding year) was notionally brought forward in the current year and set off against profits of the 105 unit in the current year. The appellant submits that the declaration was filed at the time of hearing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 10B was made applicable and loss of 10B unit (which was already set off against the income of non-10B unit in the preceding year) was notionally brought forward in the current year and set off against profits of the 105 unit in the current year. The appellant submits that the declaration was filed at the time of hearing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 10B was made applicable and loss of 10B unit (which was already set off against the income of non-10B unit in the preceding year) was notionally brought forward in the current year and set off against profits of the 105 unit in the current year. The appellant submits that the declaration was filed at the time of hearing

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 10B was made applicable and loss of 10B unit (which was already set off against the income of non-10B unit in the preceding year) was notionally brought forward in the current year and set off against profits of the 105 unit in the current year. The appellant submits that the declaration was filed at the time of hearing

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 10B was made applicable and loss of 10B unit (which was already set off against the income of non-10B unit in the preceding year) was notionally brought forward in the current year and set off against profits of the 105 unit in the current year. The appellant submits that the declaration was filed at the time of hearing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TURBO ENERGY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 10B was made applicable and loss of 10B unit (which was already set off against the income of non-10B unit in the preceding year) was notionally brought forward in the current year and set off against profits of the 105 unit in the current year. The appellant submits that the declaration was filed at the time of hearing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 10B was made applicable and loss of 10B unit (which was already set off against the income of non-10B unit in the preceding year) was notionally brought forward in the current year and set off against profits of the 105 unit in the current year. The appellant submits that the declaration was filed at the time of hearing

RAMA NAICK CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2930/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

274, T.H. Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 021. PAN : AAATT0484B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Sh. A. Kanagaraj, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 10.07.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2015 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal

ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(1), CHENNAI vs. MEDUSA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2416/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Medusa Services Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Ward 4(1), Vs. No. 93, First Floor, Lakshmi Tower, Chennai 600 034. Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan:Aaecm1187F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vepa Krishna, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

section 10B of the Act prior to giving effect to the brought forward depreciation of earlier years. 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. While affirming the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 80-IC of the Act are sold in the domestic market only and not exported outside India. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind and modify the grounds hereinabove or produce further documents, facts and evidence before or at the time hearing of this appeal. 8.1 The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee