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

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A had to be rejected, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154) at para-32 observed that it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is not includible in total income, is to be disallowed. If expenditure

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TRIVITRON HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.462/Mds/2016 "नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 14A, if the assessee has not earned/ received any exempted Income and in EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. v. DCIT it was held that investments made by the assessee in the subsidiary company were not on investment for earning capital gains or dividend income. Such investments had been made by the assessee to promote subsidiary company into hotel industry

WABCO INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2606/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Wabco India Limited, Plot No. 3 (Sp), Iii Main Road, Income Tax, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 058. Chennai. [Pan: Aafca6421P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri S. Venkatasubramanian, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.12.2019

section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent of ₹.4,33,22,839/- being revenue expenditure and ₹.6,19,46,239/- being 200% of capital expenditure. Since the assessee could not provide certificate from DSIR on which the claim can be allowable, the weighted deduction claimed of ₹.10,52,69,078/- was disallowed

SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.84/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

section 115 JB (Para .6.1 at Page 50). As is evident, the additions / disallowance which forms the subject matter of this appeal are i.e., (i) Disallowance u/s 14A; (ii) Disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure; (iii) Disallowance of Bad debts written-off; (iv) Disallowance of 50% expenditure towards R&D facility: (v) Disallowance of Electricity Tax u/s 43B as well

ACIT,NCC-8,, CHENNAI vs. SAINT GOBAIN INDIA PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.581 & 585/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 8, [Formerly Known As M/S. Saint-Gobain Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Annexe Glass India Ltd.], 18/3, Sigapi Achi Building, 7Th Floor, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Building, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai -600 034. Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aabcs4338M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaragahavan, Advocate & : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal In Ita No. 581/Chny/2021 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 28.02.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & The Other Appeal In Ita No. 585/Chny/2021 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of 2

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the appeal in ITA No. 585/Chny/2021, the only issued involved is with regard to the addition made towards investment promotion subsidy as revenue receipt or capital receipt. The facts of the case are that during the year, the assessee company