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 u/s.40(a)(i) should not be upheld by this Tribunal. The summary of the arguments of Ld.AR before us is as below: - 17 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 - It is trite law that in the absence of tax liability of the recipient of income under the Act, no liability for withholding

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 u/s.40(a)(i) should not be upheld by this Tribunal. The summary of the arguments of Ld.AR before us is as below: - 17 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 - It is trite law that in the absence of tax liability of the recipient of income under the Act, no liability for withholding

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11 Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax, Development Finance Company Circle-Ii(3), Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.878/Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Development Finance Company Vs. Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : Shri Farookh V. Irani, Advocate : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024

Section 36(1) (vii) of the Act.” Ground No.1 against the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act - Rs. 134,25,40,754: 3. The assessee company received a dividend of Rs 134.25 crores during the relevant previous year, and claimed net income on the dividend of Rs 133

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CO. CIRCLE - II (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

Section 36(1) (vii) of the Act.” Ground No.1 against the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act - Rs. 134,25,40,754: 3. The assessee company received a dividend of Rs 134.25 crores during the relevant previous year, and claimed net income on the dividend of Rs 133

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. IDFC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

Section 36(1) (vii) of the Act.” Ground No.1 against the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act - Rs. 134,25,40,754: 3. The assessee company received a dividend of Rs 134.25 crores during the relevant previous year, and claimed net income on the dividend of Rs 133

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment year under appeal. 12. With regard to bogus purchase of copra, in the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer has observed as under: 7. Bogus Purchase of copra: On verification, it is found that Shri.Shajahan has played

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment year under appeal. 12. With regard to bogus purchase of copra, in the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer has observed as under: 7. Bogus Purchase of copra: On verification, it is found that Shri.Shajahan has played

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment year under appeal. 12. With regard to bogus purchase of copra, in the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer has observed as under: 7. Bogus Purchase of copra: On verification, it is found that Shri.Shajahan has played

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment year under appeal. 12. With regard to bogus purchase of copra, in the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer has observed as under: 7. Bogus Purchase of copra: On verification, it is found that Shri.Shajahan has played

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

133(6) of the Act on Keller Ground Engineering India Private Limited ("Keller India"). 2.4. The Id. CIT erred in passing the Impugned Order, on the allegation that the Ld. AO had not examined the refund claim of the Appellant along with interest, without appreciating that the Ld. AO had duly conducted enquiries and verification on interest claimed along with

UNIPRES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 3 (2),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance under section 14A is attracted only while computing the total income under the normal provisions of the Act and not for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, modify and/or withdraw in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before

M/S. SRI VENKATACHALAPATHY SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD.,,RAJAPALAYAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRLCE - 2,, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.528 & 529/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Sri Venkatachalapathy Spinning Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Mills Private Limited,454, Kothankulam Income Tax, Village, Srivilliputhur Road, Corporate Circle 2, Rajapalayam 626 117. Madurai. [Pan:Aadcs9037R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Madurai Both Dated 20.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Effective Common Ground Raised In Both The Appals Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2

disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, in the grounds of appeal the assessee has raised a specific ground that the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹.10,133

M/S. SRI VENKATACHALAPATHY SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD.,,RAJAPALAYAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRLCE - 2,, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.528 & 529/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Sri Venkatachalapathy Spinning Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Mills Private Limited,454, Kothankulam Income Tax, Village, Srivilliputhur Road, Corporate Circle 2, Rajapalayam 626 117. Madurai. [Pan:Aadcs9037R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Madurai Both Dated 20.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Effective Common Ground Raised In Both The Appals Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2

disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, in the grounds of appeal the assessee has raised a specific ground that the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹.10,133

SHEETAL V. BHAT,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 133(6) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any disallowance

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. RED BRICK REALTORS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

133, has also held that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not distinguish between amounts “paid” and “payable

REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

133/-. The Assessing Officer considered this information in the assessment order and the assessee was provided an opportunity to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The draft assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA and 144C(1) of the Act on 23.03.2015 along with disallowance

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

133/-. The Assessing Officer considered this information in the assessment order and the assessee was provided an opportunity to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The draft assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA and 144C(1) of the Act on 23.03.2015 along with disallowance

RAMANIYAM REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I, LTU,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2439/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Limited. 17/35, Ii Main Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. [Pan: Aaacr-2276-A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Acit, Vs. Circle -1, Ltu, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Herein After “Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 13.08.2025 & Pertains To

disallowance of the said sum in terms of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, Invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 8. The NFAC, Delhi ought to have appreciated that having not exercised the power vested in terms of Section 133

M.ARUNACHALAM AND COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S M. Arunachalam & Company, The Joint / Assistant No.117/79, Lloyds Road, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Business Range Viii, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaafm 6851 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance is attracted when an individual, who is liable to deduct tax on any interest payable to a resident on which tax is deductible at source, commits default. The language of the Section does not warrant an interpretation that it is attracted only if the interest remains payable on the last day of the financial year. If this contention