D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

4 placed at page 110 of the paper book. On perusal of page\n111 of the paper book, it is noted that the assessee has shown purchase\ncost, amount applied for charitable purpose and amount accumulated or\nset apart for specified purposes, which clearly demonstrates that the\nAssessing Officer specifically asked the assessee to furnish the details\nregarding computation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act made by the assessing officer primarily on the ground that the assessee was merely executing works contracts and did not satisfy the conditions stipulated u/s.80IA(4), under BOT/BOOT models by holding as under: “4. It is noticed that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 4,11,08,393/- under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act made by the assessing officer primarily on the ground that the assessee was merely executing works contracts and did not satisfy the conditions stipulated u/s.80IA(4), under BOT/BOOT models by holding as under: “4. It is noticed that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 4,11,08,393/- under section

DCIT , COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED , ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

section 80IA(4) The\ndeduction claimed of Rs 4,11,08,393/- is therefore being disallowed\nand added to the total

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

section 80IA(4) The\ndeduction claimed of Rs 4,11,08,393/- is therefore being disallowed\nand added to the total

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee

M/S. A V M CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee

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

11,250\n| 5,00,738\n| Technologies\n\n- 23 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\n| 2 | Riverbed\n| Singapore\n| USD\n| 12,275\n| 5,42,901\n| Technology Pte\n| Ltd\n| 3 | Sparx System\n| Australia\n| USD\n| 3,337\n| 1,47,984\n| Pty Ltd\n| 4

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

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered\nagainst the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120\ntaxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the\njudgment reads as follows:\n"9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd.\n[TCA Nos.732

ZENITH PUBLIC SCHOOL,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, SALEM

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

disallowed as application\nby the AO of Rs.10,28,208/- represented the interest paid to the extent of\nRs.10,17,911/- and late fees of Rs.10,710/- and that the same was not\nrepayment of loan. He submitted that it is only the repayment of loan which is\ngoverned by explanation 4 to section 11

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

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered\nagainst the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120\ntaxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the\njudgment reads as follows:\n"9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd.\n[TCA Nos.732

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

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered\nagainst the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120\ntaxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the\njudgment reads as follows:\n\n"9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd.\n[TCA Nos.732

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

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered\nagainst the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120\ntaxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the\njudgment reads as follows:\n"9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd.\n[TCA Nos.732