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

23. We find that the Id. AR placed on record two orders of Mumbai Tribunal and one order of Delhi Tribunal. On an examination of the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the ITAT Mumbai Benches in ITA No. 1080/Mum/2019 for AY 2011-12, we find the fact of that case relating to the issue on hand is discussed in para

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

23 I.T.A. No.1759/Chny/19 & Ors United India Insurance holding the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is not justified as the assessee considered the profit on sale of investments to the profit & loss account prepared as per the IRDA Act/ Insurance Act and no adjustment is required to be made under Rule

ICF SILVER JUBILEE NURSERY & PRIMARY SCHOOL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 126/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Icf Silver Jubilee Nursery & Deputy Commissioner Of Income Primary School, V. Tax, Konnur High Road, Non Corporate Ward -10(1), Chennai – 600 038. Chennai. [Pan: Aabai-0461-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

disallowing an amount of Rs.60,07,830/- representing net surpluses of two different schools i.e. ICF Silver Jubilee Nursery school lCF Silver Jubilee Primary school. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Appellant and has adjudicated on the wrong grounds which is irrelevant to the case of the Appellant. Reference is drawn

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

23,21,315/-. However, the AO is directed to verify that the amount remains paid as on 31.03.2012. If, however, the impugned amount or part thereof remains unpaid as on 31.03.2012, the same shall be disallowed.” (Emphasis supplied) 31. Thus, the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, CIT(A) granted

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

23,21,315/-. However, the AO is directed to verify that the amount remains paid as on 31.03.2012. If, however, the impugned amount or part thereof remains unpaid as on 31.03.2012, the same shall be disallowed.” (Emphasis supplied) 31. Thus, the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, CIT(A) granted

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

23,21,315/-. However, the AO is directed to verify that the amount remains paid as on 31.03.2012. If, however, the impugned amount or part thereof remains unpaid as on 31.03.2012, the same shall be disallowed.” (Emphasis supplied) 31. Thus, the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, CIT(A) granted

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 -

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards Software Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and payments 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)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards Software Annual Maintenance Charges (‘Software AMC’) and payments 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)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards Software Annual Maintenance Charges (‘Software AMC’) and payments towards license to use software (‘Software License

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

23,866/- under section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. 3 I.T.A. Nos.691 & 692/M/17 4. On being aggrieved

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

23,866/- under section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. 3 I.T.A. Nos.691 & 692/M/17 4. On being aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

10. The Honorable DRP/AO have failed to appreciate that during the relevant financial year the appellant had more interest income than interest expenses and hence, the provisions of section 14A of the Act ought not to apply. 11. The learned AC has erred in making the disallowance merely for the reason that the appellant had interest expenditure in its business

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. The Honorable DRP/AO have failed to appreciate that during the relevant financial year the appellant had more interest income than interest expenses and hence, the provisions of section 14A of the Act ought not to apply. 11. The learned AC has erred in making the disallowance merely for the reason that the appellant had interest expenditure in its business

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

10. The Honorable DRP/AO have failed to appreciate that during the relevant financial year the appellant had more interest income than interest expenses and hence, the provisions of section 14A of the Act ought not to apply. 11. The learned AC has erred in making the disallowance merely for the reason that the appellant had interest expenditure in its business

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. The Honorable DRP/AO have failed to appreciate that during the relevant financial year the appellant had more interest income than interest expenses and hence, the provisions of section 14A of the Act ought not to apply. 11. The learned AC has erred in making the disallowance merely for the reason that the appellant had interest expenditure in its business

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)

23,82,25,000/-. The ratio of the exempt income i.e. dividend income. to the gross receipts of the assessee was 27.75%. Non earning of exempt income for the particular investment giving rise to exempt income in future years is also not relevant for making computation of expense under the provisions

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)

23,82,25,000/-. The ratio of the exempt income i.e. dividend income. to the gross receipts of the assessee was 27.75%. Non earning of exempt income for the particular investment giving rise to exempt income in future years is also not relevant for making computation of expense under the provisions

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