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)

10A/ 10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant on enhanced income arising out of disallowance made under section 14A of the Act as illogical without providing any cogent reasons for the same. Issue No. 2 – Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts, in upholding

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)

10A/ 10AA of the Act shall be granted to the Appellant on enhanced income arising out of disallowance made under section 14A of the Act as illogical without providing any cogent reasons for the same. Issue No. 2 – Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts, in upholding

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

10A/ 10AA of the Act.\nOthers\n19. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove

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

10A / 10AA of the Act on the enhanced\nprofits arising due to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act.\nNow, given that the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act is restricted to\nexempt income earned for AY 2010-11, we direct the AO to\nrecompute the consequential relief u/s.10A/ 10AA of the Act on the\nenhanced profits arising due to disallowance

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

10A/ 10AA of the Act.\n\nOthers\n\n18. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\n\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds

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

10A/ 10AA of the Act.\nOthers\n18. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove

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

10A / 10AA of the Act on the enhanced\nprofits arising due to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act.\nNow, given that the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act is restricted to\nexempt income earned for AY 2010-11, we direct the AO to\nrecompute the consequential relief u/s.10A/ 10AA of the Act on the\nenhanced profits arising due to disallowance

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

7. Disallowance of deduction u/s.10AA: 7.1 In the return of Income for A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee company claimed deduction u/s.10AA for a sum of Rs.47,19,678/-. The assessee claimed deduction under section 10A

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

10A/ 10AA of the Act.\nOthers\n18. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove

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

10A/ 10AA of the Act.\nOthers\n19. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MEGASOFT LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2560/Mds/2014 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1250, 1251 & 1252/Mds/2015 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1416/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Megasoft Limited, Income Tax, Company Circle Iv(2), V. No.85, Kutchery Road, The Assistant Commissioner Of Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 8933 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

7 I.T.A. No.2560/Mds/14 I.T.A. Nos.1250 to 1252/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1416/Mds/15 eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) found that when there was loss in a particular year, the question of opting out of the scheme under Section 10A of the Act does not arise for consideration. The CIT(Appeals

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MEGASOFT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2560/Mds/2014 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1250, 1251 & 1252/Mds/2015 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1416/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Megasoft Limited, Income Tax, Company Circle Iv(2), V. No.85, Kutchery Road, The Assistant Commissioner Of Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 8933 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

7 I.T.A. No.2560/Mds/14 I.T.A. Nos.1250 to 1252/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1416/Mds/15 eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) found that when there was loss in a particular year, the question of opting out of the scheme under Section 10A of the Act does not arise for consideration. The CIT(Appeals

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MEGASOFT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2560/Mds/2014 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1250, 1251 & 1252/Mds/2015 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1416/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Megasoft Limited, Income Tax, Company Circle Iv(2), V. No.85, Kutchery Road, The Assistant Commissioner Of Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 8933 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

7 I.T.A. No.2560/Mds/14 I.T.A. Nos.1250 to 1252/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1416/Mds/15 eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) found that when there was loss in a particular year, the question of opting out of the scheme under Section 10A of the Act does not arise for consideration. The CIT(Appeals

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MEGASOFT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2560/Mds/2014 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1250, 1251 & 1252/Mds/2015 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1416/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Megasoft Limited, Income Tax, Company Circle Iv(2), V. No.85, Kutchery Road, The Assistant Commissioner Of Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 8933 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

7 I.T.A. No.2560/Mds/14 I.T.A. Nos.1250 to 1252/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1416/Mds/15 eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) found that when there was loss in a particular year, the question of opting out of the scheme under Section 10A of the Act does not arise for consideration. The CIT(Appeals

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MEGASOFT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2560/Mds/2014 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1250, 1251 & 1252/Mds/2015 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1416/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Megasoft Limited, Income Tax, Company Circle Iv(2), V. No.85, Kutchery Road, The Assistant Commissioner Of Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 8933 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

7 I.T.A. No.2560/Mds/14 I.T.A. Nos.1250 to 1252/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1416/Mds/15 eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) found that when there was loss in a particular year, the question of opting out of the scheme under Section 10A of the Act does not arise for consideration. The CIT(Appeals

M/S. ALAGUMALAI IMPEX PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

disallowing ₹.6,39,234/- under section 14A of the Act. 3 I.T.A. Nos.214, 2911 & 721/M/14 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following various decisions, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. With regard to the claim of deduction

ALAGUMALAI IMPEX PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

disallowing ₹.6,39,234/- under section 14A of the Act. 3 I.T.A. Nos.214, 2911 & 721/M/14 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following various decisions, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. With regard to the claim of deduction

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ALAGUMALAI IMPEX P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

disallowing ₹.6,39,234/- under section 14A of the Act. 3 I.T.A. Nos.214, 2911 & 721/M/14 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following various decisions, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. With regard to the claim of deduction

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

7) of the Act and the ld CIT(A) directed the AO to allow set off such loss out of the profits of non-eligible units by referring to the circular No.281 dated 22.9.1980, which explained the object and reintroduction of section 80-I by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1980 where similar provisions are enshrined. The conclusions arrived