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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\n- Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n- Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote

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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\n\n- 19 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para

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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote

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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\n- Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n• Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote

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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\nO Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\nO Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote

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

2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU\n[2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in\nthis regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the\ncase law paper book.\n- Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote

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

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

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

249 placed\nat pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at\npages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims\nhave been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary\nproceedings cannot be initiated

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

249 placed\nat pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at\npages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims\nhave been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary\nproceedings cannot be initiated

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

249 placed\nat pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at\npages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims\nhave been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary\nproceedings cannot be initiated

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

249 placed\nat pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at\npages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims\nhave been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary\nproceedings cannot be initiated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

disallowance\nof expenditure and does not extend to the application of\nthe money received by the payee; the application of such\nfunds thereafter has to be treated as a separate\ntransaction and that would never be the income of the\npayee. The Appellant had not commenced its business or\ncommercial operations and the payments to MIPP were\nmade through banking

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

disallowance of expenditure and does not extend to the application of the money received by the payee; the application of such funds thereafter has to be treated as a separate transaction and that would never be the income of the payee. The Appellant had not commenced its business or commercial operations and the payments to MIPP were made through banking

SRC PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, SALEM

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2358/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Src Projects Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 4-B, Lakshmipuram, Circle-(1), Gandhi Road, Salem-636 007. Salem. [Pan: Aagcs 3528 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2. The Addl. CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.17,28,945/- made by the CPC applying u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. The Addl. CIT(A) NFAC failed to appreciate that the disallowance of PF & ESI cannot be made in the Intimation u/s.143(1) passed on 29.3.2019 since the enabling amendment came into effect from