JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INDIAN BANK, CHENNAI

disallow Rs.975,23,37,141/-. The\nLd. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate\nAuthority considered the issue of interpretation of Rule-6ABA for the\npurposes of section 36(1)(viia) and granted relief to the assesse.\nWhile doing so, he relied, inter-alia, upon the decision of Coordinate\nBench of this Tribunal in the case

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INDIAN BANK, CHENNAI

disallow Rs.975,23,37,141/-. The\r\nLd. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate\r\nAuthority considered the issue of interpretation of Rule-6ABA for the\r\npurposes of section 36(1)(viia) and granted relief to the assesse.\r\nWhile doing so, he relied, inter-alia, upon the decision of Coordinate\r\nBench of this

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INDIAN BANK, CHENNAI

disallow Rs.975,23,37,141/-. The\nLd. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate\nAuthority considered the issue of interpretation of Rule-6ABA for the\npurposes of section 36(1)(viia) and granted relief to the assesse.\nWhile doing so, he relied, inter-alia, upon the decision of Coordinate\nBench of this Tribunal in the case

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

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\n\nΟ Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INDIAN BANK, CHENNAI

disallow Rs.975,23,37,141/-. The\nLd. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate\nAuthority considered the issue of interpretation of Rule-6ABA for the\npurposes of section 36(1)(viia) and granted relief to the assesse.\nWhile doing so, he relied, inter-alia, upon the decision of Coordinate\nBench of this Tribunal in the case

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

disallow exemption under section\n11 of the Act to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. He argued\nthat in the case of Songwoon Speciality Chemicals India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT\n[2024] 169 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat), when the claim was accepted in\nthe original assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer could not\nhave reopened assessment on the same facts which

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

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\n- Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

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

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\n\nΟ Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

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

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\nΟ Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

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

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\n• Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

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

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\nO Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

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

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\nΟ Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

disallow the claim\nof deduction under Section 80P of the Act to the tune of Rs.10,91,802/- forming\npart of the return of income filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the\nAct without assigning proper reasons and justification.\n9) The PCIT failed to appreciate that there was complete scrutiny of facts referred\nto in the revision

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)

151 TTJ 126 (Hyd. ITAT) o Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR) 13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the software AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries where there is no ‘make available clause’ (i.e. Germany and Austria) is taxable in India by virtue of Section

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)

151 TTJ 126 (Hyd. ITAT) o Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR) 13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the software AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries where there is no ‘make available clause’ (i.e. Germany and Austria) is taxable in India by virtue of Section

S 1284 THATHAIYANGARPATTY PACCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

disallowed deduction claimed u/s. 80P on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice under section

S 1284, THATHAIYANGARPATTY PACCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

disallowed deduction claimed u/s. 80P on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice under section

THE TIRUCHENDUR CO-OP PRIMARY CO-OP SOCIETY,TIRUCHENDUR vs. ITO, WARD-2,, TUTICORIN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3295/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2018-19

2)(a)(i) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 10,14,332/-. The assessee being aggrieved filed further appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the additions/disallowance made by the A.O. the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that