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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the Appellant, the disallowance should be restricted to 30% in view of the amendment

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

disallowing Rs 8,22,89,728 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 4. The Honourable DRP/AO have erred in law and on facts by applying the provisions of under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules, without any satisfaction on record to prove that the claim

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

disallowing Rs 8,22,89,728 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 4. The Honourable DRP/AO have erred in law and on facts by applying the provisions of under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules, without any satisfaction on record to prove that the claim

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

disallowing Rs 8,22,89,728 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 4. The Honourable DRP/AO have erred in law and on facts by applying the provisions of under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules, without any satisfaction on record to prove that the claim

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

disallowing Rs 8,22,89,728 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 4. The Honourable DRP/AO have erred in law and on facts by applying the provisions of under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules, without any satisfaction on record to prove that the claim

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

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 the amount of difference between the interest paid and interest received of ₹.6,00,000/- [₹.30,00,000-₹.24,00,000] under section

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

30,500/-. 3.1 According to AO the disallowance of the expenditure to be made according to the provisions of the Rule 8D read with section

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

30,500/-. 3.1 According to AO the disallowance of the expenditure to be made according to the provisions of the Rule 8D read with section

SHRI SHANMUGAR SERVICES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1136 & 1137/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

section 194C of the Act, and consequent disallowance of expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But, in respect of alternate plea of the assessee in light of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Calcutta Export Company reported in 2018 93 Taxman.com 51 (SC), directed the AO to disallow 30

SHRI SHANMUGAR SERVICES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1136 & 1137/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

section 194C of the Act, and consequent disallowance of expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But, in respect of alternate plea of the assessee in light of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Calcutta Export Company reported in 2018 93 Taxman.com 51 (SC), directed the AO to disallow 30

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the same. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ld. 4. Authorised Representative submitted that all the payments considered for disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act were already paid as on 31.03.2009, and were not outstanding as ‘’payable’’ at the end of the financial year, hence

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the same. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ld. 4. Authorised Representative submitted that all the payments considered for disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act were already paid as on 31.03.2009, and were not outstanding as ‘’payable’’ at the end of the financial year, hence

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the same. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ld. 4. Authorised Representative submitted that all the payments considered for disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act were already paid as on 31.03.2009, and were not outstanding as ‘’payable’’ at the end of the financial year, hence

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)

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 30. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was directed

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)

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 30. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was directed