UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D is not applicable to insurance companies due to the special provisions of section 44 of the Act. Similarly, in the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 603 (Madras), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was pleased to hold that the provisions of section

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the Act vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons recorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3 to 7 are allowed. 42. Ground

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

20,672 interest on the capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the 49,93,513 38,26,918 Act on account of failure to deduct tax at source from Hire Chagres Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the 89,11,904 1,84,18,116 Act on account

ALBERT & CO. P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1) , CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

20,672 interest on the capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the 49,93,513 38,26,918 Act on account of failure to deduct tax at source from Hire Chagres Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the 89,11,904 1,84,18,116 Act on account

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

20,672 interest on the capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the 49,93,513 38,26,918 Act on account of failure to deduct tax at source from Hire Chagres Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the 89,11,904 1,84,18,116 Act on account

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 -

10 Xenos Group Inc Canada USD 1,59,300 74,20,194 11 Zoho Corp USA USD 2,923 1,31,798 12 Zoho Corp USA USD 8,320 3,76,480 Total of payments (with 'make available' clause) (A) 2,62,162 1,20,46,349 Payments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make available' clause

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)

10 Xenos Group Canada USD 1,59,300 74,20,194 Inc 11 Zoho Corp USA USD 2,923 1,31,798 12 Zoho Corp USA USD 8,320 3,76,480 Total of payments (with ‘make available’ 2,62,162 1,20,46,349 clause) (A) Payments made towards Software AMC - countries without ‘make available’ clause

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)

10 Xenos Group Canada USD 1,59,300 74,20,194 Inc 11 Zoho Corp USA USD 2,923 1,31,798 12 Zoho Corp USA USD 8,320 3,76,480 Total of payments (with ‘make available’ 2,62,162 1,20,46,349 clause) (A) Payments made towards Software AMC - countries without ‘make available’ clause

TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

20,91,312/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowances. Before us, by filing the details of unpaid expenditure under section 43B of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee itself has disallowed the expenditure in the computation of income, and therefore, he has pleaded that the Assessing Officer cannot make double

TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

20,91,312/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowances. Before us, by filing the details of unpaid expenditure under section 43B of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee itself has disallowed the expenditure in the computation of income, and therefore, he has pleaded that the Assessing Officer cannot make double

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

20,957 (as per return of income). On the other hand, the income claimed as exempt of " 23,82,25,782 constituted 27.75% (23,82,25,000x100 /85,81,74,000) of the total receipts of the assessee. Hence, disallowance according to the provisions of section 14A, is at 20.56% of the total expenditure as against proportionate expenditure

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

20,957 (as per return of income). On the other hand, the income claimed as exempt of " 23,82,25,782 constituted 27.75% (23,82,25,000x100 /85,81,74,000) of the total receipts of the assessee. Hence, disallowance according to the provisions of section 14A, is at 20.56% of the total expenditure as against proportionate expenditure

SHRI RAMSINGH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.7, 1St Floor, V. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. Pan : Afdpr4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2017

disallowance of benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, to the 4 I.T.A. No. 2194,2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 assessee. In these assessment years, assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. The same was rejected by the lower authorities on the reason that the assessee violated the provisions of clause (e) of Section 80IB(10

SHRI RAMSINGH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.7, 1St Floor, V. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. Pan : Afdpr4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2017

disallowance of benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, to the 4 I.T.A. No. 2194,2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 assessee. In these assessment years, assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. The same was rejected by the lower authorities on the reason that the assessee violated the provisions of clause (e) of Section 80IB(10

SHRI RAMSINGH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.7, 1St Floor, V. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. Pan : Afdpr4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2017

disallowance of benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, to the 4 I.T.A. No. 2194,2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 assessee. In these assessment years, assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. The same was rejected by the lower authorities on the reason that the assessee violated the provisions of clause (e) of Section 80IB(10

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A.L.HOMES, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowance of Rs.19,99,981/- u/s 801B(10). 2.1 The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that new condition was introduced under clause (e) and (f) of section 801B(10) which reads as under”- “Not more than one residential unit in the housing project is allotted to any person not being an individual” Provisions of section 801B(10(f) reads

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

10. On the issues of the disallowances ; of consulting fee and escrow fee paid to bank , the ld DR invited our attention to the relevant portion of the order of the ld CIT(A), which is extracted as under “ 5.5 Ground No.6 raised by the appellant is against disallowance of Rs.13,70,90,436 and Rs.2,01,663 paid

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

10. On the issues of the disallowances ; of consulting fee and escrow fee paid to bank , the ld DR invited our attention to the relevant portion of the order of the ld CIT(A), which is extracted as under “ 5.5 Ground No.6 raised by the appellant is against disallowance of Rs.13,70,90,436 and Rs.2,01,663 paid