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

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

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

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

b) Prior period adjustment of expenses of Rs.16.02,435/- c) Interest expenses on Govt of Tamilnadu term loan for Rs. 79,84,285/- interest on ways and means advance for Rs.37,80,822/- d) Unsuccessful project promotion expenses written off for Rs.12, 11,673/- e) Interest on income-tax refund not offered to tax for Rs.1

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

b) Prior period adjustment of expenses of Rs.16.02,435/- c) Interest expenses on Govt of Tamilnadu term loan for Rs. 79,84,285/- interest on ways and means advance for Rs.37,80,822/- d) Unsuccessful project promotion expenses written off for Rs.12, 11,673/- e) Interest on income-tax refund not offered to tax for Rs.1

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

249 (Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), one may find that the ITA Nos. 2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 & ITA Nos.2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962 & 2963/Chny/2017 :- 7 -: decision that the expenditure was a capital expenditure and hence not deductible, rested in the context of the peculiar facts of the case; the partnership with which the assessee