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

disallowance\nunder section 14A r.w. Rule 8D is not applicable to insurance companies\ndue to the special provisions of section 44 of the Act. Similarly, in the\ncase of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025]\n174 taxmann.com 603 (Madras), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was\npleased to hold that the provisions of section

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

disallowance\nunder section 14A r.w. Rule 8D is not applicable to insurance companies\ndue to the special provisions of section 44 of the Act. Similarly, in the\ncase of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025]\n174 taxmann.com 603 (Madras), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was\npleased to hold that the provisions of section

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

disallowance\nunder section 14A r.w. Rule 8D is not applicable to insurance companies\ndue to the special provisions of section 44 of the Act. Similarly, in the\ncase of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025]\n174 taxmann.com 603 (Madras), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was\npleased to hold that the provisions of section

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

disallowance\nunder section 14A r.w. Rule 8D is not applicable to insurance companies\ndue to the special provisions of section 44 of the Act. Similarly, in the\ncase of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025]\n174 taxmann.com 603 (Madras), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was\npleased to hold that the provisions of section

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

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

10 | Xenos Group\n| Canada\n| USD\n| 1,59,300\n| 74,20,194\n| Inc\n| 11 | Zoho Corp\n| USA\n| USD\n| 2,923\n| 1,31,798\n| 12 | Zoho Corp\n| USA\n| USD\n| 8,320\n| 3,76,480\n| Total of payments (with 'make available'\n| clause

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\n\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

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

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

20,526/- and including even the\ninterest payable to other lenders not covered under the provisions of\nSection 43B(d) and (e) of the Act.\n5. Disallowance in respect of mark to market losses on current\ninvestments – Rs 13,96,48,468/-\n5.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the Appellant\nwith respect to mark

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