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

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered\nagainst the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120\ntaxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the\njudgment reads as follows:\n"9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd.\n[TCA Nos.732

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

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered\nagainst the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120\ntaxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the\njudgment reads as follows:\n\n"9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd.\n[TCA Nos.732

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

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered\nagainst the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120\ntaxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the\njudgment reads as follows:\n"9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd.\n[TCA Nos.732

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

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered\nagainst the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120\ntaxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the\njudgment reads as follows:\n"9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd.\n[TCA Nos.732

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

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered\nagainst the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120\ntaxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the\njudgment reads as follows:\n\"9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd.\n[TCA Nos.732

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)

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered against the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120 taxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: "9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd. [TCA Nos.732

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)

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered against the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120 taxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: "9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd. [TCA Nos.732

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

Disallowance u/S 37(1) - 53,25,720 3,89,98,710 4,43,24,430 Bogus purchases Unexplained money u/S Nil 39,22,000 39,22,000 69A and unexplained 42,30,000 42,30,000 expenditure u/S 69C Income on account of 1,97,03,000 Nil 1,97,03,000 Palakol land sale Misc. income on sale

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

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

Disallowance u/S 37(1) - 53,25,720 3,89,98,710 4,43,24,430 Bogus purchases Unexplained money u/S Nil 39,22,000 39,22,000 69A and unexplained 42,30,000 42,30,000 expenditure u/S 69C Income on account of 1,97,03,000 Nil 1,97,03,000 Palakol land sale Misc. income on sale

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

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

disallowance: Rs.3,02,02,100/-\nb. Alleged bogus purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/-\nc. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of\namounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad\nd. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C: Rs.42,30,000/- being interest\npaid to Shri B.S. Prasad\ne. Addition on account of sale proceeds of land at Palakol: Rs.1

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

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

disallowance: Rs.3,02,02,100/-\nb. Alleged bogus purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/-\nc. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of\namounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad\nd. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C: Rs.42,30,000/- being interest\npaid to Shri B.S. Prasad\ne. Addition on account of sale proceeds of land at Palakol: Rs.1

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

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

disallowance: Rs.3,02,02,100/-\nb. Alleged bogus purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/-\nc. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of\namounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad\nd. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C: Rs.42,30,000/- being interest\npaid to Shri B.S. Prasad\ne. Addition on account of sale proceeds of land at Palakol: Rs.1

ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

disallowance: Rs.3,02,02,100/-\nb. Alleged bogus purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/-\nc. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of\namounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad\nd. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C: Rs.42,30,000/- being interest\npaid to Shri B.S. Prasad\ne. Addition on account of sale proceeds of land at Palakol: Rs.1

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

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

NEETHIVANAN JEYASUDHA,CHENNAI vs. ADDL JCIT (A), JODHPUR

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.449/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Neethivanan Jeyasudha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No.P3, Old No.P13, Non Corporate Ward 19(4) 19Th Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan: Aplpj5195D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Varadarajan, Cma ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

disallowance /addition / adjustment of expenses at Rs.50,06,400/-. 4. As against the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 28.12.2022, the assessee has filed an appeal u/s 250 of CIT(A) with a delay of 7 months. 5. As per Section 249

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

249/- paid to TATA Communications had been disallowed by the A.O. This disallowance is upheld. This ground of appeal is dismissed. ITA Nos.1985 to 1987/Chny/2019 & :- 5 -: Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before Tribunal against the confirmation of disallowance of connectivity charges paid to TATA Communications (UK) Ltd. 6. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan

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

249/- paid to TATA Communications had been disallowed by the A.O. This disallowance is upheld. This ground of appeal is dismissed. ITA Nos.1985 to 1987/Chny/2019 & :- 5 -: Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before Tribunal against the confirmation of disallowance of connectivity charges paid to TATA Communications (UK) Ltd. 6. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan