ALBERT & CO. P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1) , CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

29. The brief facts of the case are that Appellant filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which was selected for detailed scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making the following additions / disallowance: AY 2014-15 Particular Amount (INR) Disallowed deduction of proportionate interest on 51,89,484 the capital borrowed under Section

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

29. The brief facts of the case are that Appellant filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which was selected for detailed scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making the following additions / disallowance: AY 2014-15 Particular Amount (INR) Disallowed deduction of proportionate interest on 51,89,484 the capital borrowed under Section

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

29 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\noutside India as the assessee is an exporter of computer\nsoftware and related services.\n\n- The assessee cannot be expected to effect tax deduction at\nsource on the payments due to subsequent amendment made\nunder the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reliance\nwas

TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 43B of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee itself has disallowed the expenditure in the computation of income, and therefore, he has pleaded that the Assessing Officer cannot make double disallowance, which was already disallowed by the assessee. In view of the above submissions, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify

TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 43B of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee itself has disallowed the expenditure in the computation of income, and therefore, he has pleaded that the Assessing Officer cannot make double disallowance, which was already disallowed by the assessee. In view of the above submissions, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 115JB(2). Therefore, this issue is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for making appropriate disallowance U/s.14A r w s 115JB, if the total income has to be determined and to be assessed u/s 115JB . Therefore, this issue is remitted to the AO ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 115JB(2). Therefore, this issue is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for making appropriate disallowance U/s.14A r w s 115JB, if the total income has to be determined and to be assessed u/s 115JB . Therefore, this issue is remitted to the AO ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 115JB(2). Therefore, this issue is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for making appropriate disallowance U/s.14A r w s 115JB, if the total income has to be determined and to be assessed u/s 115JB . Therefore, this issue is remitted to the AO ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 115JB(2). Therefore, this issue is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for making appropriate disallowance U/s.14A r w s 115JB, if the total income has to be determined and to be assessed u/s 115JB . Therefore, this issue is remitted to the AO ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014

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: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident

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: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident

SMT. D. SAILAJA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2350/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. D. Sailaja, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam Vs. Income Tax, Extension, Nandanam, Non Corporate Circle Ii, Chennai 600 035. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaops2743J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Purshothaman, C.A. Shri Guru Bashyam, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

disallowed ₹.1,29,921/- under section 14A of the Act and therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is unwarranted

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

disallowed an amount of Rs.2,04,29,812/- on account of expenditure relatable to dividend income as per Section 14A of the Act. While

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

disallowed an amount of Rs.2,04,29,812/- on account of expenditure relatable to dividend income as per Section 14A of the Act. While

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

29 to 31 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation at ₹.1,04,34,735/-, besides disallowance of ₹.55,00,000/- under section

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

29 to 31 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation at ₹.1,04,34,735/-, besides disallowance of ₹.55,00,000/- under section

M/S. SHRIRAM CONSTRUCTION FINANCE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.317/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shriram Construction Finance, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafs2597N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.343/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Construction Income Tax, Finance, Mookambika Complex, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 26.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As 2

29,531/- has been disallowed under rule 8D(2)(ii) in the assessment completed u/s.143(3) on 10.12.2015 and, therefore, the initiation of proceedings u/s.147 is due to change of opinion. In this connection the appellant rely on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator Indian Ltd (320 ITR 561) and Delhi High Court decision

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CONSTRUCTION FINANCE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.317/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shriram Construction Finance, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafs2597N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.343/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Construction Income Tax, Finance, Mookambika Complex, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 26.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As 2

29,531/- has been disallowed under rule 8D(2)(ii) in the assessment completed u/s.143(3) on 10.12.2015 and, therefore, the initiation of proceedings u/s.147 is due to change of opinion. In this connection the appellant rely on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator Indian Ltd (320 ITR 561) and Delhi High Court decision