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

TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

section he has disallowed the expense. 5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Interest paid on Ways and Means Advance amounting to Rs. 37,80,822/- 5.1 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the interest was payable on Ways and Means Advance of Rs. 50 crores received from the Government of Tamilnadu. The Government

TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

section he has disallowed the expense. 5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Interest paid on Ways and Means Advance amounting to Rs. 37,80,822/- 5.1 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the interest was payable on Ways and Means Advance of Rs. 50 crores received from the Government of Tamilnadu. The Government

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

249 placed at pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at pages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims have been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary proceedings cannot be initiated

VST AUTO AGENCY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1345/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

249/-? It is also necessary to find out whether such discount given by the assessee over and above to the discount given by TATA Motors Ltd. is allowable business expenditure. The assessee has now filed the details of customers to whom the discount was said to be given over and above the discount given by M/s TATA Motors Ltd. Therefore

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

249 (SC), though passed in the context of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. But the requirement of law as given in section 271(1) & 270A(1) of the Act is noted to be pari-materia. As far as Section 271(1) is concerned, the AO to record ‘satisfaction’ to levy penalty whereas in section 270A

ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1985, 1986, 1987/Chny/2019 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16 Allsec Technologies Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of No.7H, Century Plaza, Vs. Income Tax, 560-562, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aacca-5106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : 04.01.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2023

section 195. The payments amounting to Rs.71,18,249/- paid to TATA Communications had been disallowed by the A.O. This

ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1985, 1986, 1987/Chny/2019 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16 Allsec Technologies Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of No.7H, Century Plaza, Vs. Income Tax, 560-562, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aacca-5106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : 04.01.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2023

section 195. The payments amounting to Rs.71,18,249/- paid to TATA Communications had been disallowed by the A.O. This

ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1985, 1986, 1987/Chny/2019 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16 Allsec Technologies Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of No.7H, Century Plaza, Vs. Income Tax, 560-562, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aacca-5106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : 04.01.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2023

section 195. The payments amounting to Rs.71,18,249/- paid to TATA Communications had been disallowed by the A.O. This

ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1985, 1986, 1987/Chny/2019 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16 Allsec Technologies Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of No.7H, Century Plaza, Vs. Income Tax, 560-562, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aacca-5106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : 04.01.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2023

section 195. The payments amounting to Rs.71,18,249/- paid to TATA Communications had been disallowed by the A.O. This

S.V.SREENIVASEN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.892/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. S.V. Sreenivasen, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.278, Arunachalam Street, Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 002. Coimbatore. [Pan Aiqps 8095P]

249/-. :- 3 -: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment P. Ltd (supra) held as under at para 9 of its judgment. ‘’9. In the present case, the AO has not firstly disclosed why the appellant/assessee’s claim for attributing Rs.2,97,440/- as a disallowance under Section

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

disallowances under sections 37(1) or 36 nor addition of unaccounted income can be justified merely because the payment cycle involved cash returns. 108. The assessee has shown that the sums received back were spent solely as “speed money.” Supporting this, the Jurisdictional Madras High Court in CIT v. South India Corporation Agencies Ltd. [2007] 164 TAXMAN 249