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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

94,449 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Hire Chagres Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on 34,50,866 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Labour Chagres Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on 11,76,000 account of failure to deduct tax at source from Other

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

disallowed Rs. 7,82,68,493 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating 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) - 44 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 that the transaction was a colourable device to reduce taxable income and if at all the transaction was in accordance with commercial necessity, the expense

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

disallowed Rs. 7,82,68,493 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating 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) - 44 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 that the transaction was a colourable device to reduce taxable income and if at all the transaction was in accordance with commercial necessity, the expense

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

disallowed Rs. 7,82,68,493 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating 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) - 44 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 that the transaction was a colourable device to reduce taxable income and if at all the transaction was in accordance with commercial necessity, the expense

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

disallowed Rs. 7,82,68,493 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating 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) - 44 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 that the transaction was a colourable device to reduce taxable income and if at all the transaction was in accordance with commercial necessity, the expense

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

94,398/- disallowed by the assessee in the return. The Assessing officer has arrived at the total disallowance under Section 14 A at ₹25,92,856/-. IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 10 -: On appeal, it was submitted before the CIT(A) that for the assessment year under Appeal viz., 2013-14, the AO has applied amended

SHRIRAMINSIGHT SHARE BROKERS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2975/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Lady Vs. Income Tax, Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci2727H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Gautham Venketanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai Dated 31.07.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Part Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D, Disallowance Of Depreciation In Respect Of Royalty, Disallowance Of Bad Debt & Part

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D alone afresh in accordance with law after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The next ground raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of depreciation in respect of royalty. The assessee has claimed an amount of ₹.39,86,570/- as royalty payment and classified under “other expenses”. After considering the submissions

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

disallowance figure to Rs.243,89,59,212/- (Rs.557,94,03,835/- minus Rs. Rs.314,04,44,623). Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 4.4 Having considered the submissions of the assessee, in light of the findings of the lower authorities, we note that, Section

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

disallowance figure to Rs.243,89,59,212/- (Rs.557,94,03,835/- minus Rs. Rs.314,04,44,623). Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 4.4 Having considered the submissions of the assessee, in light of the findings of the lower authorities, we note that, Section

ABT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

94,078/-. Hence, there is a short disallowance under section 14A of the Act amounts to ₹.3,01,70,930/-, which was not considered in the original assessment 4 I.T.A. Nos.61 & 62/Chny/21 order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 22.02.2016. Therefore, the ld. PCIT proposed for revision of assessment under section 263 of the Act. 5. After considering

ABT LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

94,078/-. Hence, there is a short disallowance under section 14A of the Act amounts to ₹.3,01,70,930/-, which was not considered in the original assessment 4 I.T.A. Nos.61 & 62/Chny/21 order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 22.02.2016. Therefore, the ld. PCIT proposed for revision of assessment under section 263 of the Act. 5. After considering

SQS INDIA BFSI LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. THINKSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES LTD.),CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes for both the assessment years

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Commissioner Of Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Vs. Income Tax, Services Ltd.) Door No. 6A, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 6(2), Prince Infocity Ii, 283/3 & 283/4, Rajiv Chennai. Gandhi Salai (Omr), Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 036. [Pan:Aabct0976G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Export Commission Payment In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Also Challenged Confirmation Of Disallowance Towards Payments For Professional Services Rendered For Both The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2

94,733/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has not disputed

SQS INDIA BFSI LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. THINKSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES LTD.),CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes for both the assessment years

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Commissioner Of Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Vs. Income Tax, Services Ltd.) Door No. 6A, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 6(2), Prince Infocity Ii, 283/3 & 283/4, Rajiv Chennai. Gandhi Salai (Omr), Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 036. [Pan:Aabct0976G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Export Commission Payment In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Also Challenged Confirmation Of Disallowance Towards Payments For Professional Services Rendered For Both The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2

94,733/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has not disputed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

7. Issue No 2- Disallowance of Scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) 7.1 Moving on to Ground No.2 in ITA No.2632/Chny/2024, the same is in respect of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act. The assessee had incurred capital expenditure towards scientific research activities undertaken in its DSIR recognised R&D unit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8 1 (INCHARGE), HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, TAMIL NADU

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

7. Issue No 2- Disallowance of Scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) 7.1 Moving on to Ground No.2 in ITA No.2632/Chny/2024, the same is in respect of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act. The assessee had incurred capital expenditure towards scientific research activities undertaken in its DSIR recognised R&D unit

VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

7. Issue No 2- Disallowance of Scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) 7.1 Moving on to Ground No.2 in ITA No.2632/Chny/2024, the same is in respect of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act. The assessee had incurred capital expenditure towards scientific research activities undertaken in its DSIR recognised R&D unit

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

94,00,000/-. :-5-: ITA Nos. 1159 & 1160/Mds/2017 5.1 The CIT(A) ought to have directed the assessing officer to exclude the same u/s. 10(34).” For ay 2010-11 : “ 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

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

94,00,000/-. :-5-: ITA Nos. 1159 & 1160/Mds/2017 5.1 The CIT(A) ought to have directed the assessing officer to exclude the same u/s. 10(34).” For ay 2010-11 : “ 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance