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 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

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

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 after giving benefit of Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act subject to the Appellant complying with the I.T.A. Nos. 1618/CHNY/2017 &. 2577 & 2578/CHNY/2018 Assessment Years : 2012 -13, 2013 -14 & 2014 -15 requirements of the said provision by furnishing relevant certificate/documents. In view of the aforesaid, Ground

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 after giving benefit of Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act subject to the Appellant complying with the I.T.A. Nos. 1618/CHNY/2017 &. 2577 & 2578/CHNY/2018 Assessment Years : 2012 -13, 2013 -14 & 2014 -15 requirements of the said provision by furnishing relevant certificate/documents. In view of the aforesaid, Ground

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 after giving benefit of Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act subject to the Appellant complying with the I.T.A. Nos. 1618/CHNY/2017 &. 2577 & 2578/CHNY/2018 Assessment Years : 2012 -13, 2013 -14 & 2014 -15 requirements of the said provision by furnishing relevant certificate/documents. In view of the aforesaid, Ground

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

10\n\n(b) Payments towards license to use software ('Software\nLicense')\n\nAssessment\nYear\nAppeal by\nGround\nNo.\nAY 2010-11\nAssessee (ITA No. 1193/CHNY/2024)\n12 to 17\nAY 2011-12\nAssessee (ITA No. 1194/Chny/2024)\n12 to 17\nAY 2012-13\nAssessee (ITA No. 1205/CHNY/2024)\n11 to 16\n\n8.1 During the AY 2010-11, the assessee had made

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1) (I/C) , CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1199/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Credit Company Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1) I/C, Limited, Shriram House, No. 4, Aayakar Bhavan, Wanaparthy Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Block, 7Th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri R.Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 26.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment

section 14A of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the Revenue become academic and requires no adjudication. 4. The next ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue in ground No. 3 to 3.3 relates to deletion of disallowance of royalty payment of ₹.56,43,969/-. The assessee has claimed

SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1199/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Credit Company Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1) I/C, Limited, Shriram House, No. 4, Aayakar Bhavan, Wanaparthy Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Block, 7Th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri R.Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 26.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment

section 14A of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the Revenue become academic and requires no adjudication. 4. The next ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue in ground No. 3 to 3.3 relates to deletion of disallowance of royalty payment of ₹.56,43,969/-. The assessee has claimed

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

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 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

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)

37 of the Act the expenditure relating to income has to be disallowed in respect of insurance company. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 47. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. In respect of insurance

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 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)

37 of the Act the expenditure relating to income has to be disallowed in respect of insurance company. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 47. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. In respect of insurance

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

37 of the Act the expenditure relating to income has to be disallowed in respect of insurance company. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 47. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. In respect of insurance

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 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)

37 of the Act the expenditure relating to income has to be disallowed in respect of insurance company. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 47. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. In respect of insurance