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:

section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act r.w.r. 2BC of I.T. Rules, 1962. Further, the assessee relied on various judicial precedents wherein the Hon’ble Courts have held that each educational institution is a separate entity controlled under various status for various purposes even though the management of these institutions would be in the hands of one society

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

ii) of the Rules cannot be applied given the Appellant's own\nsurplus funds exceeds the investments that potentially yield any exempt\nincome.\n\n6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating\nthe alternative plea of the Appellant that tax holiday under section 10A/\n10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant

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

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

ii) is erroneous, inter\nalia, as the AO had, while calculating the total assets, considered\nthe opening and closing balance of net current assets (ie, net of\ncurrent liabilities and provisions) instead of gross current assets.\nix. The disallowance, if any, made under Rule 8D(2) was to be\ncomputed on the basis of the Rule 8D(2) which

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

ii) of the Rules cannot be applied given the Appellant's own\nsurplus funds exceeds the investments that potentially yield any exempt\nincome.\n6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating\nthe alternative plea of the Appellant that tax holiday under section 10A/\n10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant

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

ii) of the Rules cannot be applied given the Appellant's own\nsurplus funds exceeds the investments that potentially yield any exempt\nincome.\n\n6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating\nthe alternative plea of the Appellant that tax holiday under section 10A/\n10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant

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

ii) of the Rules cannot be applied given the Appellant's own\nsurplus funds exceeds the investments that potentially yield any exempt\nincome.\n6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating\nthe alternative plea of the Appellant that tax holiday under section 10A/\n10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant

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

ii) of the Rules cannot be applied given the Appellant's own\nsurplus funds exceeds the investments that potentially yield any exempt\nincome.\n6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating\nthe alternative plea of the Appellant that tax holiday under section 10A/\n10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant

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

ii) of the Rules cannot be applied given the Appellant's own\nsurplus funds exceeds the investments that potentially yield any exempt\nincome.\n6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating\nthe alternative plea of the Appellant that tax holiday under section 10A/\n10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant

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

ii) of the Rules cannot be applied given the Appellant's own\nsurplus funds exceeds the investments that potentially yield any exempt\nincome.\n6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating\nthe alternative plea of the Appellant that tax holiday under section 10A/\n10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant

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)

ii) of the Rules cannot be applied given the Appellant’s own surplus funds exceeds the investments that potentially yield any exempt income. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the alternative plea of the Appellant that tax holiday under section 10A/ 10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant

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)

ii) of the Rules cannot be applied given the Appellant’s own surplus funds exceeds the investments that potentially yield any exempt income. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the alternative plea of the Appellant that tax holiday under section 10A/ 10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

ii) the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) to be restricted to 0.5% of the investments which has actually yielded exempt income during the year, would equally apply for determining disallowance u/s14A for this year also. With the above direction for computation of disallowance the issue regarding the disallowance under Section 14A is set aside to the files

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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

10. 1.4 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) in disposing off the Appellant's ground challenging the AO disallowance under section 14A of the Act ought to have held that: i. The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D ought to have been deleted as the Assessing Officer ("the AO") had not ITA No.877, 878/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. IDFC LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

10. 1.4 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) in disposing off the Appellant's ground challenging the AO disallowance under section 14A of the Act ought to have held that: i. The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D ought to have been deleted as the Assessing Officer ("the AO") had not ITA No.877, 878/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

25% of its total paid up equity capital in any financial year subject to compliance with Sub-sections (2), (c) and (4). It does not supplant or take away any part of the pre-existing jurisdictions of the Company Court to sanction a scheme for such reduction under Sections 100-104 and Section 191 • A similar position was taken

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

25% of its total paid up equity capital in any financial year subject to compliance with Sub-sections (2), (c) and (4). It does not supplant or take away any part of the pre-existing jurisdictions of the Company Court to sanction a scheme for such reduction under Sections 100-104 and Section 191 • A similar position was taken

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

10,968 1,68,89,922 1,15,25,809 Further, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has provided all the necessary documentation to the ld.CIT(A), which clearly substantiates the actual rent receipts was amounting to Rs.1,87,62,010/-. Out of which an amount of Rs.18,03,566/- was offered to tax during the A.Y. under consideration

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

10,968 1,68,89,922 1,15,25,809 Further, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has provided all the necessary documentation to the ld.CIT(A), which clearly substantiates the actual rent receipts was amounting to Rs.1,87,62,010/-. Out of which an amount of Rs.18,03,566/- was offered to tax during the A.Y. under consideration