MAHENDRA KUMAR DAMANI,VIRUTHUNAGAR vs. ADIT(CPC), BENGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.805 & 806/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2019-20 Mr.Mahendra Kumar Damani, V. The Asst. Director Of- 7/5, Velayutham Rastha, Sivakasi, Income Tax, Virudhunagar District-626 123. Cpc, Bangalore.

Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, as observed hereinabove. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Wipro Ltd., which was rendered with reference to sec.10B

MAHENDRA KUMAR DAMANI,VIRUTHUNAGAR vs. ADIT(CPC), BENGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.805 & 806/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2019-20 Mr.Mahendra Kumar Damani, V. The Asst. Director Of- 7/5, Velayutham Rastha, Sivakasi, Income Tax, Virudhunagar District-626 123. Cpc, Bangalore.

Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, as observed hereinabove. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Wipro Ltd., which was rendered with reference to sec.10B

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

disallowance of the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. 21. In this regard, the ld.CIT(A) drew strong support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Courtin the case of CIT v. Heartland KG Information Ltd [2013] 39 taxmann.com 132 (Madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held while interpreting the analogous provision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ASTROTECH STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1150/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Astrotech Steels Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1) 19, Ii Floor, Right Wing, Ghatala Towers, Chennai. Avenue Road, Nungambakkam Vs. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakca-0128-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

disallowance. 5. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that it was not mandatory to file this form and it was a regulatory measure only. 4 Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jayanthilal Patel (2001) (248 ITR 199) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

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 -

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 Α.Υ.2010-11 to A.Y. 2014-15 Assessment Appeal by Year Ground No. AY 2010-11 Department (ITA No. 1262/CHNY/2024) 2 AY 2011-12 Department (ITA No. 1263/CHNY/2024) 2 AY 2012-13 Department

HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

disallowance made in the assessment order in respect of Brand & Trade Marks (Rs.99,19,84,875) and Non- compete fee (Rs.1,13,82,750) is hereby deleted.” 5.6 However, the assessee has filed writ petition against the above assessment order and the Hon’ble High Court has held that the :- 14 -: impugned order is barred by limitation. As the assessment

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)

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) 2 AY 2012-13 Department (ITA No. 1264/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)

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) 2 AY 2012-13 Department (ITA No. 1264/CHNY/2024

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. CORE CARBONS P LTD., COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1378/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Core Carbons Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 91, Krishna Colony, Corporate Circle – 2, Singanallur, 63-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 005. Coimbatore. Pan : Aabcc 2663 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2. Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of activated carbon, which is used in industrial applications. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer, during the assessment proceedings, found that the assessee commenced production from

THE ERODE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EMP CO-OP T& C LIMITED,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.509 & 510/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021)

2)(d).] 6.2 Grounds no. A and B are against not being allowed to claim deduction u/s 80P as the return of income was filed beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1). The AO invoked the provisions of section 80AC, as amended w.e.f. 1/4/2018 to deny claim of deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 87,07,378/- The appellant

THE ERODE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EMP CO-OP T& C LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 (1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.509 & 510/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021)

2)(d).] 6.2 Grounds no. A and B are against not being allowed to claim deduction u/s 80P as the return of income was filed beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1). The AO invoked the provisions of section 80AC, as amended w.e.f. 1/4/2018 to deny claim of deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 87,07,378/- The appellant

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3556 & 3557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Skm Egg Products Export (I) Ltd., Income Tax Circle 1, Vs. No. 185, Chennimalai Road, No. 15, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001. Erode 638 001. [Pan: Aaccs7160G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, Pcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Both Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. In Both The Appeals, The Revenue Has Raised Following Common Grounds: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Is Right In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order U/S 154 Of A.O. Dated 13.02.2018 Directing To Allow Set Off Of Available Brought Forward Unabsorbed 'Depreciation Losses After Giving Effect To The Order Of The Cit(A) In The Assessee'S Own Case For The A.Y. 2008-09?

disallowance of brought forward business loss of Rs. 14,38,03,371/- made by the A.O. in his order u/s 143(3) dated 31.12.2010 for A.Y. 2008-09 with reference to section 10B(6)(i) and 10B(6)(ii) is incorrect? 4. The Hon'ble ITAT is requested to cancel the order of the learned CIT(A) and uphold

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3556 & 3557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Skm Egg Products Export (I) Ltd., Income Tax Circle 1, Vs. No. 185, Chennimalai Road, No. 15, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001. Erode 638 001. [Pan: Aaccs7160G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, Pcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Both Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. In Both The Appeals, The Revenue Has Raised Following Common Grounds: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Is Right In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order U/S 154 Of A.O. Dated 13.02.2018 Directing To Allow Set Off Of Available Brought Forward Unabsorbed 'Depreciation Losses After Giving Effect To The Order Of The Cit(A) In The Assessee'S Own Case For The A.Y. 2008-09?

disallowance of brought forward business loss of Rs. 14,38,03,371/- made by the A.O. in his order u/s 143(3) dated 31.12.2010 for A.Y. 2008-09 with reference to section 10B(6)(i) and 10B(6)(ii) is incorrect? 4. The Hon'ble ITAT is requested to cancel the order of the learned CIT(A) and uphold

RECKITT BENCKISER SCHOLL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.756/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Reckitt Benckiser Scholl The Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited V. Income Tax, (Formerly Known As M/S. Corporate Circle – V (1), Reckitt Benekiser Scholl India Chennai Limited). Plot F 73/74, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram – 602 117

disallowed by the Appellant. 5. Set off of brought forward business loss before allowing deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5.1 The DRP/AO erred in setting off the brought forward business loss of earlier years from profits of the undertaking before allowing deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5.2 The DRP/AO failed to appreciate that the term ‘total

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ppeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

10B (2)(c) states: "the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in "the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in "the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly

HANDY WATERBASE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 422/Chny/2020, 672 & 1228/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

10B of the Act can be considered only when a commercially new and distinct product comes into existence after undergoing manufacturing activities. Therefore, from the facts brought out by the AO in light of new definition of manufacture as per section 2(29BA) of the Act, it is very clear that activities carried out by the assessee company does

HANDY WATERBASE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 422/Chny/2020, 672 & 1228/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

10B of the Act can be considered only when a commercially new and distinct product comes into existence after undergoing manufacturing activities. Therefore, from the facts brought out by the AO in light of new definition of manufacture as per section 2(29BA) of the Act, it is very clear that activities carried out by the assessee company does

HANDY WATERBASE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 422/Chny/2020, 672 & 1228/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

10B of the Act can be considered only when a commercially new and distinct product comes into existence after undergoing manufacturing activities. Therefore, from the facts brought out by the AO in light of new definition of manufacture as per section 2(29BA) of the Act, it is very clear that activities carried out by the assessee company does

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. ORIENT GREEN POWER COMPANY LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Disallowance of Management fee - The Transfer Pricing Officer erred in determining the Arms Length Price for management fee paid to Shriram Industrial Holdings at NIL against Rs.4,04,49,600/- claimed by the appellant and recommending downward adjustment of Rs.4,04,49,600/- of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of downward adjustment suggested