ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY FUTURE SOFT PRIVATE LIMITED), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 V. The Acit, Capgemini Technology Corporate Circle-1(1), Services India Ltd., Block 3, ‘C’ Wing, 4Th Floor, Chennai. Capgemini Knowledge Park, Airoli Knowledge Park, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 708. [Pan: Aaacf 0482 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA provides that the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 10A shall apply to in relation to the deduction specified in section 10AA(1). The said

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.

disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA provides that the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 10A shall apply to in relation to the deduction specified in section 10AA(1). The said

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.

disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA provides that the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 10A shall apply to in relation to the deduction specified in section 10AA(1). The said

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1552/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. The Dcit, Jaya Educational Trust, Chennai. No.8, Krishnapuram, Ii Main Road, Thiruninravur, Thiruvallur-602 024. [Pan:Aaatj 0369 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

8. Whereas, with regard to the terms of appointment, that interest free loan of Rs.5.50 crores each shall have to be paid to them, it is envisaged in the statute that the funds of the Trust which is claiming exemption u/s 11, shall have to be utilized in the manner provided in Section 11 and subject to conditions of Section

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

ADIT, CHENNAI vs. S A A ISPAHANI TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed as application during the assessment for A.Y.2001-02. The Tribunal in its order in ITA Nos.2124 & 2125/Mds/2007 for the Asst Years 2001-02 and 2003-04 dated 12.09.2008 relied on the Apex court order in the case of Kapurchand Srimal v.CIT Andhra Pradesh 131 ITR 451 and directed for further investigation on the violation of the Section 13

SREE RAGHAVENDRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 834 & 835/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16

8 years. The case of the assessee is that it is not the case of the AO that the alleged loan amounts were advanced during the impugned assessment year for the purpose of invoking section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) of the Act. b) The assessee submits that the source of the loans mentioned aforesaid

SREE RAGHAVENDRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 834 & 835/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16

8 years. The case of the assessee is that it is not the case of the AO that the alleged loan amounts were advanced during the impugned assessment year for the purpose of invoking section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) of the Act. b) The assessee submits that the source of the loans mentioned aforesaid

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

13 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\n6.1 Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee\nis in appeal before us. For AY 2011-12 to AY 2014-15, the Assessee\nsubmitted that no disallowance under section 14A of the Act read\nwith Rule 8D shall be made where there is no exempt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, CHENNAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.679/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of The Indian Institute Of Engineering Income Tax, Vs. Technology, Exemptions Circle, 363, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaatt 2768C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059500064(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015. :- 2 -: 2. There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.

Section 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Act, the AO denied the exemption U/s.11 of the Act and brought the surplus of the Trust to taxation. The AO also disallowed the depreciation of Rs.97,90,776/- on addition to fixed assets stating that the assessee has already claimed the acquisition of assets as application

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

13 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\n6.1 Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee\nis in appeal before us. For AY 2011-12 to AY 2014-15, the Assessee\nsubmitted that no disallowance under section 14A of the Act read\nwith Rule 8D shall be made where there is no exempt

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)

8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by 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 end. 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred

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)

8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by 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 end. 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIBIKULAM MADURAI vs. D N PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, ARASARADI MADURAI TAMIL NADU

8\nCrore per year. (2500 average cost per scan X 80 scans per day X 350 days).\ng) There was no agreement between the company M/s Dhevaki Diagnostic Pvt\nLtd and the assessee trust for sharing of revenue generated by way of utilising\nthe assessee trust property Siemens CT Scanner and there was no register\nmaintained by the company

JEPPIAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all four assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 480, 481, 482 & 483/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Jeppiaar Educational Trust, The Deputy/Assistant 29A, Ganapathy Street, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Central Circle -1(3), Chennai – 600 014. Chennai. [Pan: Aaatj-0562-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

disallowing the inflated amount, the application exceeds :-8-: ITA. No:480 to 483 /Chny/2023 85% and so, there is no problem for exemption u/ s 11. The argument of the assessee is fallacious. The inflated salary expenses are received back from the employees in cash and has been kept away from the accounts of the assessee trust and hence such

JEPPIAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all four assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 480, 481, 482 & 483/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Jeppiaar Educational Trust, The Deputy/Assistant 29A, Ganapathy Street, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Central Circle -1(3), Chennai – 600 014. Chennai. [Pan: Aaatj-0562-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

disallowing the inflated amount, the application exceeds :-8-: ITA. No:480 to 483 /Chny/2023 85% and so, there is no problem for exemption u/ s 11. The argument of the assessee is fallacious. The inflated salary expenses are received back from the employees in cash and has been kept away from the accounts of the assessee trust and hence such

JEPPIAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all four assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 480, 481, 482 & 483/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Jeppiaar Educational Trust, The Deputy/Assistant 29A, Ganapathy Street, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Central Circle -1(3), Chennai – 600 014. Chennai. [Pan: Aaatj-0562-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

disallowing the inflated amount, the application exceeds :-8-: ITA. No:480 to 483 /Chny/2023 85% and so, there is no problem for exemption u/ s 11. The argument of the assessee is fallacious. The inflated salary expenses are received back from the employees in cash and has been kept away from the accounts of the assessee trust and hence such

JEPPIAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all four assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 480, 481, 482 & 483/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Jeppiaar Educational Trust, The Deputy/Assistant 29A, Ganapathy Street, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Central Circle -1(3), Chennai – 600 014. Chennai. [Pan: Aaatj-0562-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

disallowing the inflated amount, the application exceeds :-8-: ITA. No:480 to 483 /Chny/2023 85% and so, there is no problem for exemption u/ s 11. The argument of the assessee is fallacious. The inflated salary expenses are received back from the employees in cash and has been kept away from the accounts of the assessee trust and hence such

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIBIKULAM MADURAI vs. D N PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, ARASARADI MADURAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed\nand Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

8\nCrore per year. (2500 average cost per scan X 80 scans per day X 350 days).\ng) There was no agreement between the company M/s Dhevaki Diagnostic Pvt\nLtd and the assessee trust for sharing of revenue generated by way of utilising\nthe assessee trust property Siemens CT Scanner and there was no register\nmaintained by the company