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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\n\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

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

SHRIRAMINSIGHT SHARE BROKERS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2975/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Lady Vs. Income Tax, Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci2727H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Gautham Venketanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai Dated 31.07.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Part Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D, Disallowance Of Depreciation In Respect Of Royalty, Disallowance Of Bad Debt & Part

disallowed the claim of bad debts due to the following reasons: 1) The assessee had not written off the bad debts in the books of account. 2) The provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) is not complied with, i.e., the trade receivable was not offered to tax during earlier years. 3) The decision of the Hon’ble Apex court

M/S. SAINT GOBAIN GLASS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

disallowing an amount of `65,90,076/- as allowable deduction being foreign exchange loss relating to the interest on loan for acquiring assets by treating it to be capitalized under normal computation as well as in computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. iii) The learned DRP as well as the learned Assessing Officer has erred in making

ACIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

206 Taxman 563. Therefore, it has to be decided as to whether section 14A is applicable to banking sector where, the securities/ shares are held as stock-in-trade. We are of the opinion that the purpose for which the shares are purchased and held would in any manner impact the applicability of section 14A, which gets attracted on incurring

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IC of the Act on allocation of common expenses on the basis of turnover for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s.80IC of the Act. Since the facts and circumstances are exactly identical and grounds raised are also identically worded grounds, we will take the facts and grounds from assessment year

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IC of the Act on allocation of common expenses on the basis of turnover for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s.80IC of the Act. Since the facts and circumstances are exactly identical and grounds raised are also identically worded grounds, we will take the facts and grounds from assessment year

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IC of the Act on allocation of common expenses on the basis of turnover for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s.80IC of the Act. Since the facts and circumstances are exactly identical and grounds raised are also identically worded grounds, we will take the facts and grounds from assessment year

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IC of the Act on allocation of common expenses on the basis of turnover for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s.80IC of the Act. Since the facts and circumstances are exactly identical and grounds raised are also identically worded grounds, we will take the facts and grounds from assessment year

MATHAVANKURICHI PACCS,TUTICORIN vs. ITO,WARD-3, TUTICORIN

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

206. PAN: AACAM 0533H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N. Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising

M/S POTHYS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 1360/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Pothys, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.15, Dr.Nageswara Rao Road, Income Tax, T. Nagar, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaffp 2437B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate For Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

206 C. (4). The provisions of this Section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub-Section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-Section (3) of after the 1st day of July, 2012. Section 234E of Income Tax Act was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 which applies for the late filing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

disallowance. 6.3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the survey fees has been paid for survey activities of various surveyors which amounts to payment towards technical and managerial support to the assassee for the purpose of its business, which would clearly fall under Explanation 2 section 9(1)(vii) 6.4. The CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

disallowance. 6.3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the survey fees has been paid for survey activities of various surveyors which amounts to payment towards technical and managerial support to the assassee for the purpose of its business, which would clearly fall under Explanation 2 section 9(1)(vii) 6.4. The CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision