D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

disallow exemption under section 11 of the Act to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. He argued that in the case of Songwoon Speciality Chemicals India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 169 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat), when the claim was accepted in the original assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer could not have reopened assessment on the same facts which were

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

disallow exemption under section 11 of the Act to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. He argued that in the case of Songwoon Speciality Chemicals India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 169 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat), when the claim was accepted in the original assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer could not have reopened assessment on the same facts which were

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

disallowance that is restricted to monetary value of the benefit to the prohibited person(s), or it will lead to complete denial of the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. 10. In the appellant's case it is noticed that it is running educational institutions. During the AY s under consideration, it was noticed

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

disallowance that is restricted to monetary value of the benefit to the prohibited person(s), or it will lead to complete denial of the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. 10. In the appellant's case it is noticed that it is running educational institutions. During the AY s under consideration, it was noticed

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

disallowance that is restricted to monetary value of the benefit to the prohibited person(s), or it will lead to complete denial of the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. 10. In the appellant's case it is noticed that it is running educational institutions. During the AY s under consideration, it was noticed

M/S JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,THIRUVALLUR vs. DCIT, CC1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

disallowance that is restricted to monetary value of the benefit to the prohibited person(s), or it will lead to complete denial of the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. 10. In the appellant's case it is noticed that it is running educational institutions. During the AY s under consideration, it was noticed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 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 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs 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. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs 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 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

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: - It is trite law that in the absence of tax liability of the recipient of income under the Act, no liability for withholding of tax can be imposed on the deductor Company. Reference in this regard

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

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are

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

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 LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

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

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

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

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

2,04,29,812/-. Further, the appellant has accepted for additional disallowance of Rs. 63,17,6961- vide letter dt 20.12.2012. Hence, without giving any reasons for rejecting the correctness of the claim, the assessing officer cannot work out the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D. 2.4 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessee had been allotted shares in companies

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

2,04,29,812/-. Further, the appellant has accepted for additional disallowance of Rs. 63,17,6961- vide letter dt 20.12.2012. Hence, without giving any reasons for rejecting the correctness of the claim, the assessing officer cannot work out the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D. 2.4 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessee had been allotted shares in companies

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance should be made. We find from the assessment order that the assessee bank itself has offered a sum of "2,19,751/- under the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. From the perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had not assigned any reason whatsoever as to how the claim

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance should be made. We find from the assessment order that the assessee bank itself has offered a sum of "2,19,751/- under the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. From the perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had not assigned any reason whatsoever as to how the claim

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance should be made. We find from the assessment order that the assessee bank itself has offered a sum of "2,19,751/- under the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. From the perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had not assigned any reason whatsoever as to how the claim

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance should be made. We find from the assessment order that the assessee bank itself has offered a sum of "2,19,751/- under the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. From the perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had not assigned any reason whatsoever as to how the claim