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

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

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are

27,86,000/- claimed as provisions for diminution in the value of equities other than actively traded on account of fire insurance account, marine insurance account, miscellaneous insurance account and debit in the profit & loss account. Further, according to the Id. PCIT, no explanation offered by the assessee in respect of applicability of provisions under Rule

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

27,86,000/- claimed as provisions for diminution in the value of equities other than actively traded on account of fire insurance account, marine insurance account, miscellaneous insurance account and debit in the profit & loss account. Further, according to the Id. PCIT, no explanation offered by the assessee in respect of applicability of provisions under Rule

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 1618/CHNY/2017 &. 2577 & 2578/CHNY/2018 Assessment Years : 2012 -13, 2013 -14 & 2014 -15 24. We have the considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an admitted fact that the payments were made in cash. According to the Assessee the small payments were made to a number

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 1618/CHNY/2017 &. 2577 & 2578/CHNY/2018 Assessment Years : 2012 -13, 2013 -14 & 2014 -15 24. We have the considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an admitted fact that the payments were made in cash. According to the Assessee the small payments were made to a number

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 1618/CHNY/2017 &. 2577 & 2578/CHNY/2018 Assessment Years : 2012 -13, 2013 -14 & 2014 -15 24. We have the considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an admitted fact that the payments were made in cash. According to the Assessee the small payments were made to a number

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 -

27. They also raised argumentative grounds saying that the amended provisions to section 9 of the Act has retrospective effect from 1.6.1976 as the amendments Rebutting the same, Ld Counsel for the assessee are clarificatory in nature. submitted that the Government is against the retrospective amendments and the same was repeatedly asserted by the Finance Minister in the Floor

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

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)

27,733/-, but on the other hand we find no basis on which he has sustain the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 50,000/-. In this regard, we find considerable cogency and force in the submissions of the assessee’s counsel as discussed above that there was no basis for the Ld. CIT(A) to sustain ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.50

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)

27,733/-, but on the other hand we find no basis on which he has sustain the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 50,000/-. In this regard, we find considerable cogency and force in the submissions of the assessee’s counsel as discussed above that there was no basis for the Ld. CIT(A) to sustain ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.50

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 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

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

27,08,646/- which was set of against their CSR obligations as required under the Companies Act. The company also claim this amount as deduction under Section 80G as all the recipients satisfy the requirement of deduction under 80G in respect of donations made to these charitable entities, AO disallowed the claim under Section 80G stating that Explanation has been

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. DOSHI HOUSING LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 80IB(10)(e)(f) inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 is applicable to assessment year 2010-11, the assessee is not entitled for claim of deduction and accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction amounting to Rs.6,85,27

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

27. We have gone through the provisions of Section 2C of the Insurance Act, 1938 which reads as follows:- “2C. (1) Save as hereinafter provided, no person shall, after the commencement of the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1950 (47 of 1950), begin to carry on any class of insurance business in India and no insurer carrying on any class of insurance