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 14A r w r 8D that the AO has disallowed the interest on loans, Rs 1,28,93,207

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 14A r w r 8D that the AO has disallowed the interest on loans, Rs 1,28,93,207

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 14A r w r 8D that the AO has disallowed the interest on loans, Rs 1,28,93,207

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 14A r w r 8D that the AO has disallowed the interest on loans, Rs 1,28,93,207

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

disallowed the entire amount of Rs.92,67,207/- claimed by the Assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) found that the Assessee had incurred Rs. 71,39,357/- as Revenue expenditure and Rs.10,63,925/- of capital expenditure, totaling to Rs.82,03,282/-. As 100% of revenue expenditure had been debited to P&L, balance weighted deduction claimed will be Rs.92

ABT LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 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. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

disallowance under section 14A of the Act was not subject matter of verification during the reassessment proceedings passed in pursuant to the search action under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. The main bone of contention of the ld. DR is that once a search has taken place under section 132 of the Act, the original assessment gets

ABT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 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. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

disallowance under section 14A of the Act was not subject matter of verification during the reassessment proceedings passed in pursuant to the search action under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. The main bone of contention of the ld. DR is that once a search has taken place under section 132 of the Act, the original assessment gets

DCIT, PONDICHERRY CIRCLE, PUDUCHERRY vs. INTEGRA SOFTWARE SERVICES P.LTD., PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

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

207/- towards outsourcing charges. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that the outsourcing charges was ₹3,64,21,499/- on which tax was deducted. However, the outsources charges to the extent payment made ₹2,95,31,708/- on which tax was not deducted at source. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the assessee

INTEGRA SOFTWARE SERVICES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

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

207/- towards outsourcing charges. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that the outsourcing charges was ₹3,64,21,499/- on which tax was deducted. However, the outsources charges to the extent payment made ₹2,95,31,708/- on which tax was not deducted at source. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the assessee

M/S. APOLLO HOSPITALS ENTERPRISES LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(1), , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.690/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shafee Mohammed Road, Of Income Tax, Thousands Lights, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca 5443 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

207/-, but such disallowances computed by the assessee is not in accordance with Rules applicable for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. In so far as disallowances computed by the AO as per new Rules, there is no dispute with regard to 1% of monthly average income yielding exempt income, and to that extent

KUMARASAMY MARTHANDAN SUBRAMANIAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

207 pages. The ld.counsel stated that these evidences are vital and it should be admitted for the reason that the assessee is an individual carrying hardware business. A survey was conducted in the business premises of the assessee and stock valuation was done. Based on the valuation, the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment made an addition of Rs.74

MOTHERS COMMERCE COMPANY PVT LTD.,PUSDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD 1, PONDICHERRY

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1351/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance of ₹44,78,207/- under Section 40A(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Referring

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1834/Chny/2017 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Iljin Automotive Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Corporate Circle-2(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 43A of the Act 4.1 Erred in law in disallowing the total Foreign Exchange (' forex') loss of INR 126,207

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(3), CHENNAI., CHENNAI vs. M/S. CATERPILLAR INDIA PVT. LTD , CHENNAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 42/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Caterpillar India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Income Tax, Taramani Road, Vs. Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai – 600 113. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 717/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Caterpillar India Private Tax, Limited, 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle- 3(3), V. Chennai – 600 034. Taramani Road, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. By Virtual ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Dated 07.03.2023. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For :-2-: It(Tp) A. No:42 /Chny/2023 & The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

Disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) on Reimbursement of Secondment cost. The ld.CIT(A) has partially allowed the appeal of the assessee and now both the assessee has filed an appeal in IT(TP)A.No.42/Chny/2023 and the Revenue has filed appeal in ITA.No.717/Chny/20. We shall first take up the Assessee’s appeal IT(TP)A.No.42/Chny/2023 5. The Assessee

DCIT CC-2(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.965/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eversendai Construction Private Limited, No. 1 & 2, The Lords, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Guindy, Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 032. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacce2174N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 09.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 9 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the abovesaid decisions, we find no reason to differ with

BENCO THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above-said decisions, we find no reason to differ with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. VIJAY DAIRY AND FARM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUSIRI , TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 69A of the Act to treat the difference in stock as unaccounted purchase / unaccounted excess the difference in stock as unaccounted purchase / unaccounted excess the difference in stock as unaccounted purchase / unaccounted excess stock. Accordingly it is considered that the addition made by the AO stock. Accordingly it is considered that the addition made by the AO stock. Accordingly