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

b) to clause (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act.\n13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding\nthe disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid payments under\nSection 40(a)(i) of the Act which have already been paid within the previous\nyear and were not outstanding as at the year

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

b) to clause (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act.\n\n13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding\nthe disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid payments under\nSection 40(a)(i) of the Act which have already been paid within the previous\nyear and were not outstanding as at the year

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

b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act.\n13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding\nthe disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid payments under\nSection 40(a)(i) of the Act which have already been paid within the previous\nyear and were not outstanding as at the year

EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT CHENNAI P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1(3), CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:1270/Chny/2018 िनधा&रणवष&/Assessment Year: 2009 - 2010

disallowance of INR 4,22,526/- being the net amount[INR.17,23,526/- minus INR.13,01,000/-]. 6. The learned Authorized Representative of the Appellant appearing before us submitted that the issue stands decided in favour of the Appellant by the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chennai Vs. Easwaran & Sons

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

b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act.\n13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding\nthe disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid payments under\nSection 40(a)(ia) of the Act which have already been paid within the previous\nyear and were not outstanding as at the year

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)

b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid payments under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act which have already been paid within the previous year and were not outstanding as at the year

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)

b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid payments under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act which have already been paid within the previous year and were not outstanding as at the year

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

b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act.\n14. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding\nthe disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid payments under\nSection 40(a)(i) of the Act which have already been paid within the previous\nyear and were not outstanding as at the year

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes the return of income

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes the return of income

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes the return of income

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,TUTUCORIN vs. DCIT, CC-1,, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes the return of income

RANE ENGINE VALVE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

4) of the India-Germany DTAA. 2.1.4 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that Ms.Eva neither has a fixed base in India nor has she stayed in India for a period exceeding 120 days in the previous year and as such the income of the consultant is not taxable in India under Article 14 of the India-Germany DTAA

RANE ENGINE VALVE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

4) of the India-Germany DTAA. 2.1.4 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that Ms.Eva neither has a fixed base in India nor has she stayed in India for a period exceeding 120 days in the previous year and as such the income of the consultant is not taxable in India under Article 14 of the India-Germany DTAA

RANE ENGINE VALVE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

4) of the India-Germany DTAA. 2.1.4 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that Ms.Eva neither has a fixed base in India nor has she stayed in India for a period exceeding 120 days in the previous year and as such the income of the consultant is not taxable in India under Article 14 of the India-Germany DTAA

RANE ENGINE VALVES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

4) of the India-Germany DTAA. 2.1.4 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that Ms.Eva neither has a fixed base in India nor has she stayed in India for a period exceeding 120 days in the previous year and as such the income of the consultant is not taxable in India under Article 14 of the India-Germany DTAA

RANE ENGINE VALVES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

4) of the India-Germany DTAA. 2.1.4 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that Ms.Eva neither has a fixed base in India nor has she stayed in India for a period exceeding 120 days in the previous year and as such the income of the consultant is not taxable in India under Article 14 of the India-Germany DTAA

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

b) or Clause (c) to provide to Section 529(1). It is therefore clear that the workmen’s due is pari passu with the claim of any secured creditor. 4.3 In this regard the following Judgments are relied upon by the ld. AR: a. In Jitendra Nath Singh in (2013) 1 SSC 462, wherein it was held as follows