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

disallowance\nunder section 14A of the Act cannot go beyond the extent of exempted\nincome itself.\n\n.....\n\n9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. The provisions of\nsection 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme\nCourt in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills

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

disallowance\nunder section 14A of the Act cannot go beyond the extent of exempted\nincome itself.\n.....\n9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. The provisions of\nsection 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme\nCourt in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills

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

disallowance\nunder Section 14A of the Act cannot go beyond the extent of exempted\nincome itself.\n.....\n9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. The provisions of\nSection 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme\nCourt in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills

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

disallowance\nunder section 14A of the Act cannot go beyond the extent of exempted\nincome itself.\n.....\n9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. The provisions of\nsection 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme\nCourt in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills

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

disallowance\nunder section 14A of the Act cannot go beyond the extent of exempted\nincome itself.\n.....\n9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. The provisions of\nsection 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme\nCourt in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

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 under section 14A of the Act cannot go beyond the extent of exempted income itself. …….. ………… 9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. The provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State

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 under section 14A of the Act cannot go beyond the extent of exempted income itself. …….. ………… 9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. The provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. S K T STUDIOS, CHENNAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

disallowing the expenditure claimed on estimation basis without there being any evidences, more particularly when the books of accounts are subjected to audit under section 44AB of the Act. As evident in the assessment order, the AO has not rejected the books of accounts in terms of section 145

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

disallowance of provisions for incentive on coupon on sales of bearings amounting to ₹.4,82,418/-. 4.1 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as per Notification No. S.O. 69(E), dated 25.01.1996 given under section 145

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

disallowance of provisions for incentive on coupon on sales of bearings amounting to ₹.4,82,418/-. 4.1 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as per Notification No. S.O. 69(E), dated 25.01.1996 given under section 145

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

disallowance of provisions for incentive on coupon on sales of bearings amounting to ₹.4,82,418/-. 4.1 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as per Notification No. S.O. 69(E), dated 25.01.1996 given under section 145

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

disallowance of provisions for incentive on coupon on sales of bearings amounting to ₹.4,82,418/-. 4.1 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as per Notification No. S.O. 69(E), dated 25.01.1996 given under section 145

S.ARJUN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD 20(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer. Now before us, the ld. Authorised Representative strongly 5. assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that assessee had specifically claimed before the lower authorities that the claim, alternatively had to be allowed as a business loss. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the advances having being given to a company which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERAALS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 145(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the books of accounts of the Appellant Firm for the FY(s) Accordingly, the books of accounts of the Appellant Firm for the FY(s) Accordingly, the books of accounts of the Appellant Firm for the FY(s) 2014-15 and 2015 15 and 2015-16 are hereby rejected. Thus, having rejected