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

26 of the paper book and\nsubmits that Id. CIT(A) accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of\nthe Act in the appellate order for the AY 2012-13 in assessee's case and\nthe Id. PCIT also accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of the Act\nconsidering remand report of the Assessing Officer. He also drew

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

26 of the paper book and\nsubmits that Id. CIT(A) accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of\nthe Act in the appellate order for the AY 2012-13 in assessee's case and\nthe Id. PCIT also accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of the Act\nconsidering remand report of the Assessing Officer. He also drew

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

26 of the paper book and\nsubmits that Id. CIT(A) accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of\nthe Act in the appellate order for the AY 2012-13 in assessee's case and\nthe Id. PCIT also accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of the Act\nconsidering remand report of the Assessing Officer. He also drew

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

26 of the paper book and\nsubmits that Id. CIT(A) accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of\nthe Act in the appellate order for the AY 2012-13 in assessee's case and\nthe Id. PCIT also accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of the Act\nconsidering remand report of the Assessing Officer. He also drew

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

26 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\n14. The Ld.AR for the assessee as a without prejudice argument\nsubmitted that the said disallowance results in enhanced business\nincome eligible for deduction under section 10A/ 10AA of the Act.\nFor A.Y.2010-11, the Id.AR also pointed out that the AO provided the\nrelief under Section 10A/ 10AA

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

26,918/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. 17. In appeal on this issue, the CIT(A) confirmed the above disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) granted relief to the Appellant by extending the benefit of the Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (amended through

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

26,918/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. 17. In appeal on this issue, the CIT(A) confirmed the above disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) granted relief to the Appellant by extending the benefit of the Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (amended through

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

26,918/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. 17. In appeal on this issue, the CIT(A) confirmed the above disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) granted relief to the Appellant by extending the benefit of the Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (amended through

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

26 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\n14. The Ld.AR for the assessee as a without prejudice argument\nsubmitted that the said disallowance results in enhanced business\nincome eligible for deduction under section 10A/ 10AA of the Act.\nFor A.Y.2010-11, the Id.AR also pointed out that the AO provided the\nrelief under Section 10A/ 10AA

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)

26. The facts relating to the issue of disallowance of set-off of losses incurred by units eligible for deduction u/s.10A and 10AA against other taxable income is common for all the A.Ys being A.Y.2010-11 to A.Y. 2014-15 Assessment Appeal by Ground Year No. AY 2010-11 Department (ITA No. 1262/CHNY/2024) 2 AY 2011-12 Department (ITA No. 1263/CHNY/2024

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)

26. The facts relating to the issue of disallowance of set-off of losses incurred by units eligible for deduction u/s.10A and 10AA against other taxable income is common for all the A.Ys being A.Y.2010-11 to A.Y. 2014-15 Assessment Appeal by Ground Year No. AY 2010-11 Department (ITA No. 1262/CHNY/2024) 2 AY 2011-12 Department (ITA No. 1263/CHNY/2024

SMT. D. SAILAJA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2350/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. D. Sailaja, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam Vs. Income Tax, Extension, Nandanam, Non Corporate Circle Ii, Chennai 600 035. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaops2743J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Purshothaman, C.A. Shri Guru Bashyam, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

26,921/- while disallowing under section 14A of the Act. 13. On perusal of the computation of disallowance under section 14A of the Act, we find that that by applying third limb of Rule 8D(2) and calculated 0.5% of the average total investment and disallowed ₹.6,66,212/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was in receipt

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 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

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

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)

26 Taxmann.com 342(Kol) held as under: "Therefore, a plain reading of the statutory provisions of Section 14A(2) and (3) shows that when assessee offers a disallowance under section 14A, the provisions of Section 14A(2), read with rule BD cannot be invoked unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied about incorrectness of the disallowance so offered, but when assessee

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)

26 Taxmann.com 342(Kol) held as under: "Therefore, a plain reading of the statutory provisions of Section 14A(2) and (3) shows that when assessee offers a disallowance under section 14A, the provisions of Section 14A(2), read with rule BD cannot be invoked unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied about incorrectness of the disallowance so offered, but when assessee

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