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

3) to section 14A\nof the Act, the AO does not have power to compute\ndisallowance under section 14A as per provisions of Rule 8D,\neven for A.Ys.2008-09 and onwards, if the AO does not\nexpress dissatisfaction.\n\n- For the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s.14A of\nthe Act read with rule 8D, the investments which have

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

3) to section 14A\nof the Act, the AO does not have power to compute\ndisallowance under section 14A as per provisions of Rule 8D,\neven for A.Ys.2008-09 and onwards, if the AO does not\nexpress dissatisfaction.\n- For the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s.14A of\nthe Act read with rule 8D, the investments which have

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

3) to Section 14A\nof the Act, the AO does not have power to compute\ndisallowance under Section 14A as per provisions of Rule 8D,\neven for A.Ys.2008-09 and onwards, if the AO does not\nexpress dissatisfaction.\n- For the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s.14A of\nthe Act read with rule 8D, the investments which have

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

3) to section 14A\nof the Act, the AO does not have power to compute\ndisallowance under section 14A as per provisions of Rule 8D,\neven for A.Ys.2008-09 and onwards, if the AO does not\nexpress dissatisfaction.\n- For the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s.14A of\nthe Act read with rule 8D, the investments which have

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

3) to section 14A\nof the Act, the AO does not have power to compute\ndisallowance under section 14A as per provisions of Rule 8D,\neven for A.Ys.2008-09 and onwards, if the AO does not\nexpress dissatisfaction.\n- For the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s.14A of\nthe Act read with rule 8D, the investments which have

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)

3) to section 14A of the Act, the AO does not have power to compute disallowance under section 14A as per provisions of Rule 8D, even for A.Ys. 2008-09 and onwards, if the AO does not express dissatisfaction. - For the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act read with rule 8D, the investments which have

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)

3) to section 14A of the Act, the AO does not have power to compute disallowance under section 14A as per provisions of Rule 8D, even for A.Ys. 2008-09 and onwards, if the AO does not express dissatisfaction. - For the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act read with rule 8D, the investments which have

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1552/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. The Dcit, Jaya Educational Trust, Chennai. No.8, Krishnapuram, Ii Main Road, Thiruninravur, Thiruvallur-602 024. [Pan:Aaatj 0369 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of exemption 19,37,51,000/- Interest charged on loan u/s 11: given: 11,50,57620*1% 100 months 11,50,57,620 Total taxable income: Rs.30,88,08,620/- 6. It is further noted that the AO took similar action for previous AY’s 2012-13 & 2013-14 and subsequent AY’s 2016-17 & 2017-18 which

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance of marketing expenses. Had search been not conducted in the case of the assessee, the modus operandi of the assessee and generation of unaccounted income was gone unnoticed. Therefore, the arguments of the assessee that it has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income, is incorrect. The Ld.DR further submitted that the assessee

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance of marketing expenses. Had search been not conducted in the case of the assessee, the modus operandi of the assessee and generation of unaccounted income was gone unnoticed. Therefore, the arguments of the assessee that it has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income, is incorrect. The Ld.DR further submitted that the assessee

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

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

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

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

3) excluded the application of Section 81 to private companies. As a result, under Companies Act, 1956, private companies were free to allot shares to any persons at differential prices and on differential rights. In accordance with Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 appellant filed all the returns of allotment with RoC. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs have taken

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

M P SANTHOSH KUMAR, ITO, CHENNAI vs. GREENPEACE ENVIRONMENT TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 509/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Greenpeace Environment Trust, Exemptions, Ward-1, Vs. New No.49, Old No.23, Chennai. Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan:Aaatg-3538-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

249 Taxable income -2,09,447 2,34,67,254 Expense head Amount spent & Disallowance by AO claimed by Appellant Perdiem and subsistence 3,55,741 100% 3,55,741 allowances Consultancy fee (Professional consultancy) 2,13,87,456 100% 2,13,87,456 Printing & stationery 10,11,620 50% 5,05,810 Income

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

3) excluded the application of\nSection 81 to private companies. As a result, under\nCompanies Act, 1956, private companies were free to allot\nshares to any persons at differential prices and on\ndifferential rights. In accordance with Section 75 of the\nCompanies Act, 1956 appellant filed all the returns of\nallotment with RoC. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs have\ntaken